AFAIK the 40k fluff has been running still for the last 25 years. What we know of the current events is that, in a nutshell, WE'RE fethed!
The Emperor is dying, as the Throne is giving away and Abaddon is still going strong, trying to make the process of death slightly faster. The tyranids are quickly consuming planets like they were dying of hunger, the orks feth stuff up out of sheer joy, and all the other xenos races pretty much do the same. This goes for all eldar and necrons too. The fluff "stops" at a really important turning point and as a fairly imagination-less person, I can't do anything about it myself. I wish GW was to publish some spinoff game, book series or hell, even video games that are well written might make me happy! Anyway, you get the point. I'd like them to slowly start carrying on 40k with some spinoff series. Now, this wouldn't ruin the "40k" thing (much at least), as the game still could take place in the 40 000s just fine.
What does dakka think?
(I am sorry, if a thread like this already exists, I got the idea late at night, when I didn't have patience to look through the list of posts.)
Edit: added poll option for "should GW clear out the past of the 40k background?"
Edit2: Please, mind you reading through the other comments before posting your own? Some of these arguments make valid points, don't let them go to waste.
This request doesn't apply if the amount of comment pages exceeds something like 10. No one would bother reading that
Yes, they should. Nothing decisive like the Emperor dies or whatever, but having "events" would not be a bad idea. Have Cadia fall and the Cadian Shock Troopers become refugees determined to take their home back, for instance.
Yes, I believe and official continuation might be in order, as long as it won't replace the 40k I know and love.
Why?
Because - Heresy & 40k are becoming soap operas...It's time for a change, lord of change, no matter his champion is a wuss....
At this point in the history of the product, I'd like to see even more "historicals" (as I believe they are known in the BattleTech world). The FW and Space Marine Battles style of "zooming in" on important points in the existing timeframe is very interesting. We know almost nothing of the Great Scouring, the Nova Terra Interregnum, and the Age of Apostacy, just to name a few very broad periods.
Manchu wrote: At this point in the history of the product, I'd like to see even more "historicals" (as I believe they are known in the BattleTech world). The FW and Space Marine Battles style of "zooming in" on important points in the existing timeframe is very interesting. We know almost nothing of the Great Scouring, the Nova Terra Interregnum, and the Age of Apostacy, just to name a few very broad periods.
This too. The storyline not only is stagnant, it more or less refuses to go to anywhere between M31 and M41. There have been some huge events there, and GW is giving more leeway with what's kosher for BL authors to do lately (i.e. the upcoming Sanguinius as Emperor book and Fenris coming under Imperial invasion in The Emperor's Gift) so there's a lot of exciting opportunity.
I'd love to see a series of books about battling this guy for instance
Manchu wrote: At this point in the history of the product, I'd like to see even more "historicals" (as I believe they are known in the BattleTech world). The FW and Space Marine Battles style of "zooming in" on important points in the existing timeframe is very interesting. We know almost nothing of the Great Scouring, the Nova Terra Interregnum, and the Age of Apostacy, just to name a few very broad periods.
Interesting - don't go to space, rather explore the ocean, concept...Nice, we already have some ground picture on that periods which only needs storyline...Kudos to you @Manchu
Like others have already said. I think they should move it along slowly. Not doing anything too big, but still give players something juicy to chew on for a few months, then give us something new. The current constants have been around for too long. Cadia always under attack but never falling, same for Armageddon and Ryza. Those stories should be moved along.
Absolutely not. 40K has no storyline. Rather, it has a setting which allows us, the players, to create our own storylines within it. Advancing the storyline will necessarily invalidate huge swathes of the player base. Either that, or it's just change for it's own sake. Why advance the setting ten years, if nothing at all changes? Or we only get cosmetic changes?
If you're not going to do it big, then don't do it at all. And for the love of the Emperor, don't do it big, you'll only piss everyone off. In fact, you've got it pretty much right at the moment. Don't touch it.
I honestly think they could advance the storyline without it coming to an immediate catastrophic end. For example, Cadia falls, but in a high stakes last ditch maneuver, Creed leads an attack which is able to wipe out the high command of the Black Crusade (Failbaddon the Armless included). With the sudden vacancy for warmaster, many terrible and infamous chaos warlords come forward to claim the right to the title which results in inevitable bloodshed and more or less halts the crusade. Or something like that.
40k is a setting made for highest variety in playable races, not a storyline. Advancing the story might kill options.
It's okay to have BL books or specific campaign books on different settings though (like HH).
Manchu wrote: At this point in the history of the product, I'd like to see even more "historicals" (as I believe they are known in the BattleTech world). The FW and Space Marine Battles style of "zooming in" on important points in the existing timeframe is very interesting. We know almost nothing of the Great Scouring, the Nova Terra Interregnum, and the Age of Apostacy, just to name a few very broad periods.
Kaldor wrote: Absolutely not. 40K has no storyline. Rather, it has a setting which allows us, the players, to create our own storylines within it. Advancing the storyline will necessarily invalidate huge swathes of the player base. Either that, or it's just change for it's own sake. Why advance the setting ten years, if nothing at all changes? Or we only get cosmetic changes?
If you're not going to do it big, then don't do it at all. And for the love of the Emperor, don't do it big, you'll only piss everyone off. In fact, you've got it pretty much right at the moment. Don't touch it.
I think they should start to move forwards, start a crusade off-shoot, or something, move with it and each month add missions to continue that story. It doesn't need to make a huge impact in the wider universe. They could link it to other games like the Fantasy Flight RPGs.
They could release it in the White Dwarfs but I think they should instead do it online and for free. Print a book at the end of the year if need be. But making it a free thing would be a nice thank you to fans who have stuck with the game over the years and might even take away some of the anger towards GW with the prices, lack of support, etc. Maybe even do up some free to print out and build terrain to tie into it.
Even do the same for Historic things we know little about to flesh them out a bit more. It takes little time and small effort to do that kind of thing. If its run as an offshoot and not a tsunami of change, then people who want to play out that story can, those that don't can still do their own thing.
Harriticus wrote: Yes, they should. Nothing decisive like the Emperor dies or whatever, but having "events" would not be a bad idea. Have Cadia fall and the Cadian Shock Troopers become refugees determined to take their home back, for instance.
What he said. I just want it to advance like 3 years. Unfotunately GW set a lot of storylines in M41.99999999
SkyD wrote: I think they should start to move forwards, start a crusade off-shoot, or something, move with it and each month add missions to continue that story. It doesn't need to make a huge impact in the wider universe.
They just did that with the Crusade of Fire. There's no reason something like that needs to advance the storyline.
I'm going to have to agree with kaldor, on the only thing we really agree on. The story for 40k is not designed to go forward, but rather for us to create are own stories, and while maybe they can add something from time to time, their is only eternal war.
I say keep it as is. There's a great backdrop to stage virtually any scenario or battle, with a rich setting. Why mess with that?
Want to advance it? Run a campaign on your own which plays out the continuation you'd like to see. Stage the end of the Black Crusade, or the big push to eliminate the Tyranid threat, or even targeting the Necron Tomb Worlds.
I agree, as much as i'd like to see Cadia fall, I'd much rather see the important events that make Cadia so great in the first place, that way, when it does, it would be much more epic. I could last at least 15 more years without having to go into the 42nd millennium if they covered the rich fluff of 10,000 years of war that's at most, a paragraph in the majority of our codexs.
SkyD wrote: I think they should start to move forwards, start a crusade off-shoot, or something, move with it and each month add missions to continue that story. It doesn't need to make a huge impact in the wider universe.
They just did that with the Crusade of Fire. There's no reason something like that needs to advance the storyline.
I'm not paying $80 for white dwarf nonsense and stolen ideas from game clubs.
40k has a setting which can be filled out better instead of stagnating and sitting in the same storylines for thousands of years. OP states they have trouble with imagining where you can go and he won't be the only person. Some people can rattle off a campaign that will take the next 20 years of gaming every day to complete, in less than a day, plotted out and set. Some people can't. For people like that some form of support from the game maker comes in handy. But it needs to be open for 40k players so people who play different armies can play, there will be some people who never face off against Daemons, Chaos, Dark/Eldar, etc in their gaming life. Some who won't face them because of their beliefs and the setting of certain world's will not be of any use to them.
No - its not like things are gonna get better, so long as the High Lords of Terra continue to govern the Imperium as opposed to direct Imperial rule, and people continue to remain ignorant and STUPID under the Imperial Church. Ten thousand years and more under the High Lords of Terra and the Imperial have done little other than to build on the achievements of the Great Crusade and the Imperial Truth, as opposed to actually surpassing them.
40K, it appears, is not a place for 'global' change. Rather, it's a story of heroes and villains and the battles between them. This allows for BL books and look-back scenarios.
An advancing storyline could be done, WM/H for example, but it requires focus on specific character growth and conflict change, something 40K is not focused on.
I'm going to agree with a lot of others on this.
Don't go forward, go backwards. Flesh out big battles that are just mentioned in passing in the BRB or the Codexs. There is so much space to fill.
Advancing it would upset people. Going back and fleshing out the already established fluff would make MOST gamers happy. IA has the right idea.
SkyD wrote: I'm not paying $80 for white dwarf nonsense and stolen ideas from game clubs.
But it's exactly what you're asking for. A narrative campaign crusade off-shoot, with missions that further the story. You may think it's overpriced. Welcome to Games Workshop, I guess. But despite the price it's exactly the product you asked for.
Heck, there's several Forgeworld campaigns available that all do exactly what you want, not only with new scenarios to advance the campaign story, but new rules and models as well.
gunslingerpro wrote: 40K, it appears, is not a place for 'global' change. Rather, it's a story of heroes and villains and the battles between them. This allows for BL books and look-back scenarios.
An advancing storyline could be done, WM/H for example, but it requires focus on specific character growth and conflict change, something 40K is not focused on.
Also, the WM/H setting has a completely mapped out continent, so you can make drastic changes (that simultaneously change nothing) just by re-drawing some borders. 40K deliberately avoids locking factions down like that, so it's impossible to show one faction gaining ground against another as there is very little ground to actually gain. Only the big, important planets are named and recognisable by players, and we certainly can't have Fenris or Cadia over-run.
The only bummer about fleshing out the years between the heresy and the "current date" with storied from conflicts in those times is that it plays hell with Tau and current Necron players. You basically have to go back to what existed in 2nd edition. So Tau didn't exist as a race, and Necrons were horrors that attacked out of the night in very, very small numbers like the bogeyman, and even that's quite recent.
Other than that, every single other army could function in any year of the 10,000 year time period, except for perhaps the Sisters Of Battle, but even they were created several thousand years before M41, in the Age of Apostasy, if I remember correctly (M36??).
An (in-universe) account of Ciaphas Cain's exploits managed to get published in M42.147. I suppose it could be possible that since the Imperium is in good enough shape that printing presses (or whatever its equivalent is in the far flung future) haven't been melted down for materiel for war-time production that either one of two things have happened:
1. The 13th Black Crusade was stopped.
-Or-, more likely in my book...
2. Has stalled into a near century and a half-long stalemate.
AegisGrimm wrote: The only bummer about fleshing out the years between the heresy and the "current date" with storied from conflicts in those times is that it plays hell with Tau and current Necron players. You basically have to go back to what existed in 2nd edition. So Tau didn't exist as a race, and Necrons were horrors that attacked out of the night in very, very small numbers like the bogeyman, and even that's quite recent.
The Tau have around 6000 years of history to play with from first contact with the Imperium.
And while the Necrons as a race have only arisen in the late 41st millenium, there's no saying that there was no contact at all with them prior to that. It could just not be widely known about.
YES, chaning 40k's theme from the open universe and advancing it, even a little might anger playerbase. That is why I suggested a spin-off OR just a separate series of books or something.
And YES, it would probably be better if GW decided to run more into the past, and make things clear there.
WHAT IF, these both could be done with the same spin-off?
This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
You can add fluff that takes place in the new timeline without gaking on any of the factions.
For example, one of the most disappointing aspects of the 6E CSM codex to me was the lack of any fluff regarding the actual battles of the 13th Black Crusade. I was expecting to see some short-stories regarding Chaos marines kicking ass in the Crusade; got exactly nothing.
It wouldn't be game-breaking if GW released, say, an anthology of short-stories regarding specific, new battles that take place during the Black Crusade, in M42. Introduce new characters, new storylines, etc.
40K isn't "a setting". It's whatever it needs to be to make money. The days of the table-top being GW's bread and butter are gone. The 40K fluff is almost, if not more popular than the table-top game itself. If they released content that took place in M.42, people will buy the gak out of it.
why bother...it would make no difference to the game anyway
,how could it as its bloody well all made up!!!!!!!!
like those big campaigns for different systems GW done years ago...done nothing to the hobby
BlaxicanX wrote: This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
The notion that moving the timeline forward would be good, for any reason, is idiotic and indicative of shortsightedness and wishful thinking.
The timeline was moving forward steadily right up til the 13th Black Crusade, at a rate of about 1 game year per real life year. This didn't destroy the setting and there is no reason why a similar slow crawl forward would suddenly destroy the setting. People keep acting as if moving the timeline forward were some dangerous never before tried thing, when in reality, it was the standard case until the last few editions. People also make the error of equating timeline advancement with stupendous overturning change such as the Emperor dying or Primarchs returning, when nothing of the sort needs to happen. The slow steady incremental advancement of the timeline in past editions did not involve this, and there is no reason rolling over into M42 could not do this incremental movement.
Not only did the setting not explode when the timeline moved forward in the past, but the advancement allowed for the advancement of individual character stories, even though the larger universe stayed largely status quo. For example, only when there was movement was Tycho able to evolve as a character, from a generic BA captain, to being disfigured as a result of being felled by a Weirdboy in a battle report, to then the masked Tycho, and finally to his death. Similarly, Yarrick developed through his defeat on Golgotha (an Epic Squat/Imperial vs. Ork battle report), heightening the rivalry between him and Ghazghkull. A lot of the background which gets taken for granted today did not spring up unchanging and set in stone, but developed in gradual steps as a result of timeline movement. Some people might question what is the point of incremental advancement if the larger picture is not radically changed, and the answer is it allows for individual stories to change and progress.
There have already been mentions in a couple of BL books, such as Cadian Blood, which take place in M42, and the Imperium hasn't fallen apart. Also as another poster has said, not every faction has ten thousand years of history to play around with, which is why simply limiting things to the Imperium's past is not good as it leaves these players out permanently. The Tau were not a technological race until recently. When they were first encountered by the Imperium 6000 years ago they were stone age hunters, which is hardly suitable for a 40K game. The Tyranids did not really arrive on the scene til Behemoth. The Necrons did not really become more active until recently. Sure one can try to handwave it as an isolated tomb world or a splinter fleet that conveniently disappears again, but then you also relegate these to effectively never making any impact whatsoever on the background if they are forced to somehow be forgotten about or be made to go inactive again (so that the Imperium can be surprised when the Necrons or Tyranids really show up in late M41). Players usually like to play their armies as what their armies actually are, not handwaved "stand-in" armies or have deus ex machina negate any impact they might make on background.
The current static background creates problems with expansion of the armies. For example, the Tau have only been active and technological for a short period of time. Some of their weapons in their Codex are recent additions, such as the rail rifle. This creates problems for GW if more additions are added in future editions, as ever more stuff gets crammed into a narrow unchanging window of time. One thing GW has done is try to retcon stuff further back, such as the Tau's Custodian class carrier ship, but that only goes so far because it still runs into the barrier of when the Tau actually became a technological spacefaring race, and also creates problems with continuity. This is because the Tau are explicitly described as having inferior space forces in the Damocles Crusade, and the Custodian was part of a Tau naval expansion and modernization as a result of shortcomings uncovered during that Crusade. Retcon things too far back and you overturn the reason for the Custodian's existence. Don't retcon enough and you run into the barrier of the Damocles Crusade as the earliest time when one can even think about a Custodian class carrier existing, even if just on the drawing board. It also strains ever more suspension of disbelief if the Tau are shown as taking over more worlds or sectors given the small size of their empire and their limited resources.
Constrained by the existing timeline, the background of the Tau and certain other races is inherently limited to the last few centuries, something that might not be apparent for Imperial only players. Retcon has its limits and ultimately strains suspension of disbelief or creates more conflict with existing background. The only solution lies in one early M3 leader's catchphrase, "Forward"
BlaxicanX wrote: This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
The notion that moving the timeline forward would be good, for any reason, is idiotic and indicative of shortsightedness and wishful thinking.
Gee, that was fun!
Calm out butthurt, sir. You didn't do it right; your declarative statement has to be correct, like mine was.
Iracundus wrote: The timeline was moving forward steadily right up til the 13th Black Crusade, at a rate of about 1 game year per real life year. This didn't destroy the setting and there is no reason why a similar slow crawl forward would suddenly destroy the setting. People keep acting as if moving the timeline forward were some dangerous never before tried thing, when in reality, it was the standard case until the last few editions. People also make the error of equating timeline advancement with stupendous overturning change such as the Emperor dying or Primarchs returning, when nothing of the sort needs to happen. The slow steady incremental advancement of the timeline in past editions did not involve this, and there is no reason rolling over into M42 could not do this incremental movement.
Not only did the setting not explode when the timeline moved forward in the past, but the advancement allowed for the advancement of individual character stories, even though the larger universe stayed largely status quo. For example, only when there was movement was Tycho able to evolve as a character, from a generic BA captain, to being disfigured as a result of being felled by a Weirdboy in a battle report, to then the masked Tycho, and finally to his death. Similarly, Yarrick developed through his defeat on Golgotha (an Epic Squat/Imperial vs. Ork battle report), heightening the rivalry between him and Ghazghkull. A lot of the background which gets taken for granted today did not spring up unchanging and set in stone, but developed in gradual steps as a result of timeline movement. Some people might question what is the point of incremental advancement if the larger picture is not radically changed, and the answer is it allows for individual stories to change and progress.
There have already been mentions in a couple of BL books, such as Cadian Blood, which take place in M42, and the Imperium hasn't fallen apart. Also as another poster has said, not every faction has ten thousand years of history to play around with, which is why simply limiting things to the Imperium's past is not good as it leaves these players out permanently. The Tau were not a technological race until recently. When they were first encountered by the Imperium 6000 years ago they were stone age hunters, which is hardly suitable for a 40K game. The Tyranids did not really arrive on the scene til Behemoth. The Necrons did not really become more active until recently. Sure one can try to handwave it as an isolated tomb world or a splinter fleet that conveniently disappears again, but then you also relegate these to effectively never making any impact whatsoever on the background if they are forced to somehow be forgotten about or be made to go inactive again (so that the Imperium can be surprised when the Necrons or Tyranids really show up in late M41). Players usually like to play their armies as what their armies actually are, not handwaved "stand-in" armies or have deus ex machina negate any impact they might make on background.
The current static background creates problems with expansion of the armies. For example, the Tau have only been active and technological for a short period of time. Some of their weapons in their Codex are recent additions, such as the rail rifle. This creates problems for GW if more additions are added in future editions, as ever more stuff gets crammed into a narrow unchanging window of time. One thing GW has done is try to retcon stuff further back, such as the Tau's Custodian class carrier ship, but that only goes so far because it still runs into the barrier of when the Tau actually became a technological spacefaring race, and also creates problems with continuity. This is because the Tau are explicitly described as having inferior space forces in the Damocles Crusade, and the Custodian was part of a Tau naval expansion and modernization as a result of shortcomings uncovered during that Crusade. Retcon things too far back and you overturn the reason for the Custodian's existence. Don't retcon enough and you run into the barrier of the Damocles Crusade as the earliest time when one can even think about a Custodian class carrier existing, even if just on the drawing board. It also strains ever more suspension of disbelief if the Tau are shown as taking over more worlds or sectors given the small size of their empire and their limited resources.
Constrained by the existing timeline, the background of the Tau and certain other races is inherently limited to the last few centuries, something that might not be apparent for Imperial only players. Retcon has its limits and ultimately strains suspension of disbelief or creates more conflict with existing background. The only solution lies in one early M3 leader's catchphrase, "Forward"
+1
Rationality. It's... it's such a beauty to behold.
BlaxicanX wrote: This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
The notion that moving the timeline forward would be good, for any reason, is idiotic and indicative of shortsightedness and wishful thinking.
Gee, that was fun!
Calm out butthurt, sir. You didn't do it right; your declarative statement has to be correct, like mine was.
Except it isn't necessarily correct.
The "fanbase" you speak of is actually what is referred to as a "customer base", and ensuring the highest overall satisfaction with the product is Games Workshop's highest priority.
Sometimes people forget that Games Workshop is a business, motivated by profits that allow it to continue being a business. That's why certain factions don't get new models. It's why the game rules change every so often to push people to buy new types of models.
Keeping the setting more or less static is part of the 40K appeal. It's a setting where everyone is at war, and you can buy an army of plastic toy soldiers and fight other armies of plastic toy soldiers. There is no "timeline". All of that is just fluffy bits for you to buy books about. Otherwise, the setting stays put so you're always in that grim darkness of the far future where there is only war. If the timeline "moves" it will be inches forward, to accommodate for some new battle. Nothing will change about the setting.
AegisGrimm wrote: The only bummer about fleshing out the years between the heresy and the "current date" with storied from conflicts in those times is that it plays hell with Tau and current Necron players. You basically have to go back to what existed in 2nd edition. So Tau didn't exist as a race, and Necrons were horrors that attacked out of the night in very, very small numbers like the bogeyman, and even that's quite recent.
The Tau have around 6000 years of history to play with from first contact with the Imperium.
And while the Necrons as a race have only arisen in the late 41st millenium, there's no saying that there was no contact at all with them prior to that. It could just not be widely known about.
What about the Tyranid? They've only been around for like the last 250 years.
Iracundus wrote: The timeline was moving forward steadily right up til the 13th Black Crusade, at a rate of about 1 game year per real life year. This didn't destroy the setting and there is no reason why a similar slow crawl forward would suddenly destroy the setting. People keep acting as if moving the timeline forward were some dangerous never before tried thing, when in reality, it was the standard case until the last few editions. People also make the error of equating timeline advancement with stupendous overturning change such as the Emperor dying or Primarchs returning, when nothing of the sort needs to happen. The slow steady incremental advancement of the timeline in past editions did not involve this, and there is no reason rolling over into M42 could not do this incremental movement.
Not only did the setting not explode when the timeline moved forward in the past, but the advancement allowed for the advancement of individual character stories, even though the larger universe stayed largely status quo. For example, only when there was movement was Tycho able to evolve as a character, from a generic BA captain, to being disfigured as a result of being felled by a Weirdboy in a battle report, to then the masked Tycho, and finally to his death. Similarly, Yarrick developed through his defeat on Golgotha (an Epic Squat/Imperial vs. Ork battle report), heightening the rivalry between him and Ghazghkull. A lot of the background which gets taken for granted today did not spring up unchanging and set in stone, but developed in gradual steps as a result of timeline movement. Some people might question what is the point of incremental advancement if the larger picture is not radically changed, and the answer is it allows for individual stories to change and progress.
There have already been mentions in a couple of BL books, such as Cadian Blood, which take place in M42, and the Imperium hasn't fallen apart. Also as another poster has said, not every faction has ten thousand years of history to play around with, which is why simply limiting things to the Imperium's past is not good as it leaves these players out permanently. The Tau were not a technological race until recently. When they were first encountered by the Imperium 6000 years ago they were stone age hunters, which is hardly suitable for a 40K game. The Tyranids did not really arrive on the scene til Behemoth. The Necrons did not really become more active until recently. Sure one can try to handwave it as an isolated tomb world or a splinter fleet that conveniently disappears again, but then you also relegate these to effectively never making any impact whatsoever on the background if they are forced to somehow be forgotten about or be made to go inactive again (so that the Imperium can be surprised when the Necrons or Tyranids really show up in late M41). Players usually like to play their armies as what their armies actually are, not handwaved "stand-in" armies or have deus ex machina negate any impact they might make on background.
The current static background creates problems with expansion of the armies. For example, the Tau have only been active and technological for a short period of time. Some of their weapons in their Codex are recent additions, such as the rail rifle. This creates problems for GW if more additions are added in future editions, as ever more stuff gets crammed into a narrow unchanging window of time. One thing GW has done is try to retcon stuff further back, such as the Tau's Custodian class carrier ship, but that only goes so far because it still runs into the barrier of when the Tau actually became a technological spacefaring race, and also creates problems with continuity. This is because the Tau are explicitly described as having inferior space forces in the Damocles Crusade, and the Custodian was part of a Tau naval expansion and modernization as a result of shortcomings uncovered during that Crusade. Retcon things too far back and you overturn the reason for the Custodian's existence. Don't retcon enough and you run into the barrier of the Damocles Crusade as the earliest time when one can even think about a Custodian class carrier existing, even if just on the drawing board. It also strains ever more suspension of disbelief if the Tau are shown as taking over more worlds or sectors given the small size of their empire and their limited resources.
Constrained by the existing timeline, the background of the Tau and certain other races is inherently limited to the last few centuries, something that might not be apparent for Imperial only players. Retcon has its limits and ultimately strains suspension of disbelief or creates more conflict with existing background. The only solution lies in one early M3 leader's catchphrase, "Forward"
THANK YOU SIR! This guy right here, is the first person that thoroughly explained what he thinks. I did not mean to start any sort of a flamewar. As it was probably obvious that one would come up, PLEASE see reason and quit insulting others that disagree with you. I know not all of us here may be grown ups (like me, I'm not), but let us all act like WE ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE WHOLE WORD MEANS.
Please, I've had enough of posts like these:
Spoiler:
BlaxicanX wrote:
This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
Kaldor wrote:
The notion that moving the timeline forward would be good, for any reason, is idiotic and indicative of shortsightedness and wishful thinking.
Gee, that was fun!
Please, keep the arguments rational and polite. Do not start throwing virtual ball punches at others.
Iracundus wrote: The timeline was moving forward steadily right up til the 13th Black Crusade, at a rate of about 1 game year per real life year. This didn't destroy the setting and there is no reason why a similar slow crawl forward would suddenly destroy the setting. People keep acting as if moving the timeline forward were some dangerous never before tried thing, when in reality, it was the standard case until the last few editions. People also make the error of equating timeline advancement with stupendous overturning change such as the Emperor dying or Primarchs returning, when nothing of the sort needs to happen. The slow steady incremental advancement of the timeline in past editions did not involve this, and there is no reason rolling over into M42 could not do this incremental movement.
Not only did the setting not explode when the timeline moved forward in the past, but the advancement allowed for the advancement of individual character stories, even though the larger universe stayed largely status quo. For example, only when there was movement was Tycho able to evolve as a character, from a generic BA captain, to being disfigured as a result of being felled by a Weirdboy in a battle report, to then the masked Tycho, and finally to his death. Similarly, Yarrick developed through his defeat on Golgotha (an Epic Squat/Imperial vs. Ork battle report), heightening the rivalry between him and Ghazghkull. A lot of the background which gets taken for granted today did not spring up unchanging and set in stone, but developed in gradual steps as a result of timeline movement. Some people might question what is the point of incremental advancement if the larger picture is not radically changed, and the answer is it allows for individual stories to change and progress.
There have already been mentions in a couple of BL books, such as Cadian Blood, which take place in M42, and the Imperium hasn't fallen apart. Also as another poster has said, not every faction has ten thousand years of history to play around with, which is why simply limiting things to the Imperium's past is not good as it leaves these players out permanently. The Tau were not a technological race until recently. When they were first encountered by the Imperium 6000 years ago they were stone age hunters, which is hardly suitable for a 40K game. The Tyranids did not really arrive on the scene til Behemoth. The Necrons did not really become more active until recently. Sure one can try to handwave it as an isolated tomb world or a splinter fleet that conveniently disappears again, but then you also relegate these to effectively never making any impact whatsoever on the background if they are forced to somehow be forgotten about or be made to go inactive again (so that the Imperium can be surprised when the Necrons or Tyranids really show up in late M41). Players usually like to play their armies as what their armies actually are, not handwaved "stand-in" armies or have deus ex machina negate any impact they might make on background.
The current static background creates problems with expansion of the armies. For example, the Tau have only been active and technological for a short period of time. Some of their weapons in their Codex are recent additions, such as the rail rifle. This creates problems for GW if more additions are added in future editions, as ever more stuff gets crammed into a narrow unchanging window of time. One thing GW has done is try to retcon stuff further back, such as the Tau's Custodian class carrier ship, but that only goes so far because it still runs into the barrier of when the Tau actually became a technological spacefaring race, and also creates problems with continuity. This is because the Tau are explicitly described as having inferior space forces in the Damocles Crusade, and the Custodian was part of a Tau naval expansion and modernization as a result of shortcomings uncovered during that Crusade. Retcon things too far back and you overturn the reason for the Custodian's existence. Don't retcon enough and you run into the barrier of the Damocles Crusade as the earliest time when one can even think about a Custodian class carrier existing, even if just on the drawing board. It also strains ever more suspension of disbelief if the Tau are shown as taking over more worlds or sectors given the small size of their empire and their limited resources.
Constrained by the existing timeline, the background of the Tau and certain other races is inherently limited to the last few centuries, something that might not be apparent for Imperial only players. Retcon has its limits and ultimately strains suspension of disbelief or creates more conflict with existing background. The only solution lies in one early M3 leader's catchphrase, "Forward"
This is very reasonable. Hell they don't even need to advance the storyline 1 year for every 1 real life year. Just 1 year every edition would be fine with me! That way each edition would have some new table scraps of fluff for us to lap up.
I swear to God the only reason they don't move it forward 1 year is because the game is called Warhammer 40,000!
Iracundus wrote: The timeline was moving forward steadily right up til the 13th Black Crusade, at a rate of about 1 game year per real life year. This didn't destroy the setting and there is no reason why a similar slow crawl forward would suddenly destroy the setting. People keep acting as if moving the timeline forward were some dangerous never before tried thing, when in reality, it was the standard case until the last few editions. People also make the error of equating timeline advancement with stupendous overturning change such as the Emperor dying or Primarchs returning, when nothing of the sort needs to happen. The slow steady incremental advancement of the timeline in past editions did not involve this, and there is no reason rolling over into M42 could not do this incremental movement.
Not only did the setting not explode when the timeline moved forward in the past, but the advancement allowed for the advancement of individual character stories, even though the larger universe stayed largely status quo. For example, only when there was movement was Tycho able to evolve as a character, from a generic BA captain, to being disfigured as a result of being felled by a Weirdboy in a battle report, to then the masked Tycho, and finally to his death. Similarly, Yarrick developed through his defeat on Golgotha (an Epic Squat/Imperial vs. Ork battle report), heightening the rivalry between him and Ghazghkull. A lot of the background which gets taken for granted today did not spring up unchanging and set in stone, but developed in gradual steps as a result of timeline movement. Some people might question what is the point of incremental advancement if the larger picture is not radically changed, and the answer is it allows for individual stories to change and progress.
There have already been mentions in a couple of BL books, such as Cadian Blood, which take place in M42, and the Imperium hasn't fallen apart. Also as another poster has said, not every faction has ten thousand years of history to play around with, which is why simply limiting things to the Imperium's past is not good as it leaves these players out permanently. The Tau were not a technological race until recently. When they were first encountered by the Imperium 6000 years ago they were stone age hunters, which is hardly suitable for a 40K game. The Tyranids did not really arrive on the scene til Behemoth. The Necrons did not really become more active until recently. Sure one can try to handwave it as an isolated tomb world or a splinter fleet that conveniently disappears again, but then you also relegate these to effectively never making any impact whatsoever on the background if they are forced to somehow be forgotten about or be made to go inactive again (so that the Imperium can be surprised when the Necrons or Tyranids really show up in late M41). Players usually like to play their armies as what their armies actually are, not handwaved "stand-in" armies or have deus ex machina negate any impact they might make on background.
The current static background creates problems with expansion of the armies. For example, the Tau have only been active and technological for a short period of time. Some of their weapons in their Codex are recent additions, such as the rail rifle. This creates problems for GW if more additions are added in future editions, as ever more stuff gets crammed into a narrow unchanging window of time. One thing GW has done is try to retcon stuff further back, such as the Tau's Custodian class carrier ship, but that only goes so far because it still runs into the barrier of when the Tau actually became a technological spacefaring race, and also creates problems with continuity. This is because the Tau are explicitly described as having inferior space forces in the Damocles Crusade, and the Custodian was part of a Tau naval expansion and modernization as a result of shortcomings uncovered during that Crusade. Retcon things too far back and you overturn the reason for the Custodian's existence. Don't retcon enough and you run into the barrier of the Damocles Crusade as the earliest time when one can even think about a Custodian class carrier existing, even if just on the drawing board. It also strains ever more suspension of disbelief if the Tau are shown as taking over more worlds or sectors given the small size of their empire and their limited resources.
Constrained by the existing timeline, the background of the Tau and certain other races is inherently limited to the last few centuries, something that might not be apparent for Imperial only players. Retcon has its limits and ultimately strains suspension of disbelief or creates more conflict with existing background. The only solution lies in one early M3 leader's catchphrase, "Forward"
This is very reasonable. Hell they don't even need to advance the storyline 1 year for every 1 real life year. Just 1 year every edition would be fine with me! That way each edition would have some new table scraps of fluff for us to lap up.
I swear to God the only reason they don't move it forward 1 year is because the game is called Warhammer 40,000!
I agree. But I believe that just adding 1 year each edition may not add enough options and new gak for races like Tau, as mentioned already. If advanced from now, it would become WH41k and that would also change things. What I already SAID was that it wouldn't need to make straight changes to the main game itself, but instead a new expansion might work. GW could create a (really fething huge) campaign, where players could simply play out from a wide array of missions and the battle outcomes would carry the story onwards, players would choose the faction (+ ally) they wish to play through the campaign with.
Example:
Player A decides to take his Space Marines, painted as Salamanders. The campaign forces him to play his tyranid-fielding friend and the outcome of that battle would affect the storyline in a predefined way. This means that for every playable race (Salamander NOT as a differnet faction, but vanilla marines as an independent one).
If something like this was made, it wouldn't affect the basic player base, but those willing could get their wanted continuation to the 40k fluff.
BlaxicanX wrote: This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
The notion that moving the timeline forward would be good, for any reason, is idiotic and indicative of shortsightedness and wishful thinking.
Gee, that was fun!
Calm out butthurt, sir. You didn't do it right; your declarative statement has to be correct, like mine was.
Except it isn't necessarily correct.
The "fanbase" you speak of is actually what is referred to as a "customer base", and ensuring the highest overall satisfaction with the product is Games Workshop's highest priority.
Sometimes people forget that Games Workshop is a business, motivated by profits that allow it to continue being a business. That's why certain factions don't get new models. It's why the game rules change every so often to push people to buy new types of models.
It's absolutely correct, because moving forward the timeline absolutely will not dissatisfy the customer base. It will in fact make GW more money than it's making now.
BlaxicanX wrote: This notion that moving forward the timeline is bad because it will hurt some of the fanbase' feelings is moronic and indicative of a lack of creativity.
The notion that moving the timeline forward would be good, for any reason, is idiotic and indicative of shortsightedness and wishful thinking.
Gee, that was fun!
Calm out butthurt, sir. You didn't do it right; your declarative statement has to be correct, like mine was.
Except it isn't necessarily correct.
The "fanbase" you speak of is actually what is referred to as a "customer base", and ensuring the highest overall satisfaction with the product is Games Workshop's highest priority.
Sometimes people forget that Games Workshop is a business, motivated by profits that allow it to continue being a business. That's why certain factions don't get new models. It's why the game rules change every so often to push people to buy new types of models.
It's absolutely correct, because moving forward the timeline absolutely will not dissatisfy the customer base. It will in fact make GW more money than it's making now.
WHAT DID I JUST SAY EARLIER IN THESE COMMENTS? QUIT flaming. PLEASE. We are all civilized human beings here. ...I think...
BlaxicanX wrote: It's absolutely correct, because moving forward the timeline absolutely will not dissatisfy the customer base. It will in fact make GW more money than it's making now.
It's absolutely wrong, because moving it forward will dissatisfy huge swathes of the customer base and lose GW a lot of customers.
That is if people who obsessed over fluff debates equaled the majority of Games Workshop's consumers. Which they don't.
Fluff obsessed folk like us are the minority. We are the EU fans to the common Star Wars fan. Most people simply won't care what happens with the setting, since they're already having fun either playing with their own imagination or just not caring altogether.
I'd like to see the setting move forward, and I'd like to see a new Global campaign to kick things off. We haven't really had a major conflict since the Medusa V campaign.
And anyways, Fluff focused material is already moving forwards. Codex entries and GW writers work is saying one thing, while Relic and Black Library are doing their own stuff.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's absolutely correct, because moving forward the timeline absolutely will not dissatisfy the customer base. It will in fact make GW more money than it's making now.
It's absolutely wrong, because moving it forward will dissatisfy huge swathes of the customer base and lose GW a lot of customers.
Golly, this just doesn't get old!
Except it won't, because no one except the fluff-extremists, who are the minority anyway, are going to stop buying 40K if we get twenty new fluff excerpts regarding Chaos and the Imperium beating each other up in the Black Crusade in M.42.
Say more incorrect things. I'm assuming you're going for some kind of wrong record.
BlaxicanX wrote: if we get twenty new fluff excerpts regarding Chaos and the Imperium beating each other up in the Black Crusade in M.42.
Remind me again what the point of moving the fluff forward is if it's just more of the exact same thing. Plus, if fluff nutters are the minority and the minority doesn't matter, then who (among the customers who count, in your view) will be left to positively receive these twenty excerpts of more of the same?
I think Kaldor's point is that you are making declarative statements rather than arguments. I don't agree with him but I would say that your arguments are based on arbitrary and at least party contradictory declarative statements.
I'm on the fence about it, mostly because they have a hardon for massively epic Imperial victories at the moment. Which isn't the way the overall fluff is going. Basically, the setting was written by different people in a different time. The guys they have now mostly take the fluff in a different direction - I wouldn't be surprised at all, if it wa progressed, to see the Orks driven off Armageddon, Chaos spanked back into the warp, Tyranids beaten back to the fringes of the galaxy, etc.
BlaxicanX wrote: Except it won't, because no one except the fluff-extremists, who are the minority anyway, are going to stop buying 40K if we get twenty new fluff excerpts regarding Chaos and the Imperium beating each other up in the Black Crusade in M.42.
But it will, because fans who enjoy the background are in the majority and none of them would be satisfied with more of the same, with a different date-stamp.
I, for one, simply want to see something done with the fluff.
While I'm partial to advancement, even if it's only realtime, you know, gradually working our way through the 13th Black Crusade, amongst other "contemporary" conflicts, but just expanding the universe in some meaningful way.
As it is, the only real back story development we see is the Horus Heresy series, the handful of Black Library novels, which are primarily focused on small, specific events, and then one-two paragraph statements in codexes.
There's no shortage of potentially interesting settings for them to explore historically with a meaty expansion, global campaign or whatnot, something akin to the old Macharian Crusade campaign and backstory which was released ages ago; not only did it develop a significant historical character (though only of "recent" 40k history), but it provided a working, playable campaign for people, though it's been so long, I have no idea who actually released that piece of work, or if it's even canon.
As for the risk of alienating more "modern" races like Tau and Necrons, they have lots of avenue for love; who wouldn't like a fleshed out Damocles Gulf Crusade story and campaign, or some development of the Farsight Enclaves. For the Necrons, what about a series of campaigns following ol' lightning bot, Imhotek, or the amusing Nemesor Zahndrek. There's enough going on in the 40k universe to provide a lot of plot and setting expansion, without necessarily moving on to a "conclusion."
I would, however, at least like to see the clock strike past 999M41; the Chaos dex's timeline looked a little silly with the pile of events smashed up at the end, with relatively little (save for the interesting Abyssal Crusade info) prior to the last 20 odd years of the 41st millennium.
I mean, we're reaching MASH territory here, where the plot has lasted longer than the actual events.
MajorStoffer wrote: I, for one, simply want to see something done with the fluff.
While I'm partial to advancement, even if it's only realtime, you know, gradually working our way through the 13th Black Crusade, amongst other "contemporary" conflicts, but just expanding the universe in some meaningful way.
As it is, the only real back story development we see is the Horus Heresy series, the handful of Black Library novels, which are primarily focused on small, specific events, and then one-two paragraph statements in codexes.
There's no shortage of potentially interesting settings for them to explore historically with a meaty expansion, global campaign or whatnot, something akin to the old Macharian Crusade campaign and backstory which was released ages ago; not only did it develop a significant historical character (though only of "recent" 40k history), but it provided a working, playable campaign for people, though it's been so long, I have no idea who actually released that piece of work, or if it's even canon.
As for the risk of alienating more "modern" races like Tau and Necrons, they have lots of avenue for love; who wouldn't like a fleshed out Damocles Gulf Crusade story and campaign, or some development of the Farsight Enclaves. For the Necrons, what about a series of campaigns following ol' lightning bot, Imhotek, or the amusing Nemesor Zahndrek. There's enough going on in the 40k universe to provide a lot of plot and setting expansion, without necessarily moving on to a "conclusion."
I would, however, at least like to see the clock strike past 999M41; the Chaos dex's timeline looked a little silly with the pile of events smashed up at the end, with relatively little (save for the interesting Abyssal Crusade info) prior to the last 20 odd years of the 41st millennium.
I mean, we're reaching MASH territory here, where the plot has lasted longer than the actual events.
Oh how I love people that bother explaining.
Yes, I should've said in the OP, but I also believe you have a point. While I know that advancing the game might be just pissing off some fans, who said it'd need to be done just in the normal 40k? I mean, FW could just make their own series about it, IA style. I also believe that the argument about GW's current generation preferring Imperial victories was not incorrect. GW does seem to add imperial victory stories to a quite a few codexes, without real reason. I am a Space Wolf player mostly, but I'd still love to see GW take the story onward, but add a somehow even amount of victories. The advancement could be slow, just fast enough to add the possibility to add more new campaigns and large conflicts, as they ARE quite cumulatedall around the 750 M41 - 999 M41 era.
Kaldor and BlaxicanX you can both calm the feth down now. Mo one will judge you (this argument won't work anyway.)
Its worth pointing out that FW books aren't depicting an alternate reality but the same setting as the one depicted in the codices and BL novels and FFG books. The truth is that the setting already is growing, just not forward in time.
I completely understand why some people wouldn't want the plot to move forward; it would take some of the fun out of the game, even if the armies remained exactly as they are, if you knew that your battles didn't matter or that your faction was doomed regardless. And that is the sort of thing that would have to be confronted. Even if the Imperium was somehow saved from seemingly inevitable destruction, certain factions inside it, such as the Cadians and Blood Angels, are fast approaching their expiration date.
That said, I am a major consumer of fiction novels, I literally read about one book per week (that's when school is in session). I like fiction, I like (most of) the BL authors, and I love the grim-dark nature of 40k; I don't need a tidy conclusion, but this monstrous, elegantly crafted cliff hanger is killing me! It's not that I lack creativity, I just have more faith in the creativity of people who got the jobs they currently have by demonstrating their capacity for inventive story telling.
I have also noticed the feeling of cramming that MajorStoffer mentioned. Creativity in codex design has to be limited when everything new must be retconned into existence. It's not that the past isn't enough, there's just so much potential for neat ideas that can't be used in a static timeline.
To preemptively conclude what threatens to become a rant, I, as an individual, would love for GW to move the story forward (both in fluff and in gameplay), but can also see the danger inherent in such a move.
Gul_Tekar wrote: I don't need a tidy conclusion, but this monstrous, elegantly crafted cliff hanger is killing me!
Bingo! The reason why the setting's timeline won't advance is in this sentence. At the close of the 41st Millenium everything is coming to a head - it's a massive "What's going to happen?!" sort of thing and an advance in the setting's timeline could really smash that tension and ruin what, for me, is the main draw for 40k.
For me it's about the Imperium teetering on the brink, clinging on by broken fingernails, screaming in agony but unable to let go. Beset on all-sides and from within the Imperium is slowly heading towards destruction as much through internal problems as external - but if the Imperium tried to change how it worked to save itself it'd probably shatter and fall apart - it needs the uniting factor of the God-Emperor & Imperial Creed, without the Administratum the Imperium would grind to a halt - even attempting to change the Administratum could destable the Imperium significantly as it's too big to change easily or quickly. Doing away with the High Lords of Terra could have incredible consequences - for one, the Brotherhood of Mars, expelled from their seat amongst the High Lords, could break away from the Imperium, rendering it essentially unarmed plus if a high ranking Astartes took over there is the issue that they might try and change things 'for the better' and bring down the Imperium as it all unravels and falls apart - a bit like trying to rearrange all of the blocks on a Jenga tower whilst taking away some of the towers foundations.
That's the simple version, I could probably go into more depth but another time perhaps.
I am happy to see it stay the same with only the odd reference in fluff to the following millenium.
If it was done - it would need to be done right - I still much prefer older BattleTech to Clan era and beyond - even though it was done well there - I still like the old 5 Successor states and their struggles and politicing as laid out by the Stackpole novels.
I'd rather they fleshed out more stuff with the intervening millenia - so much cool stuff in the fluff to look out.
lastly, they can't even manage to get a decent amount of Codexes/updates done using the same general information they use for each edition - if we we went to 41K we'd like get one Codex an edition.....................
Manchu wrote: Its worth pointing out that FW books aren't depicting an alternate reality but the same setting as the one depicted in the codices and BL novels and FFG books. The truth is that the setting already is growing, just not forward in time.
those of us that want the setting to advance, doesnt want an ending, doesnt want primarchs returning and that stuff, we just like to see what happened after the black crusade, how the imperium is doing after losing so much.
the dark eldar ravaged bakka, thats a segmentun naval base... i would like to know how will the imperium deal with that
After the disaster that was the Newcron Codex, I don't have faith in any of the GW in-house team to advance the timeline. It might not be so bad if FFG and BL were to flesh out the "future" in increments, but another massive middle finger to the established fans is not the way to go.
They should base the story off of the fans... For example the Cadia thing, do a massive tournament good vs evil and make the story outcome based off of the tournament outcome. Iirc they did it in the past, why not again?
They can do bfg then planet missions and stuff.
Base the fluff off of fan play. Then we can kinda have a say in the story line. It would be fun and a way of gw to include its fan base.
I think GW let Forge World do the shiny campaign packs these days?
I really enjoy them - I was pleased that Spartan did a similar - if not as big and glossy, with their recent Dystopian Wars campaign packs - Huricane Season and Storm of Steel. They did a good job with them and hope to see more
usmcmidn wrote: They should base the story off of the fans... For example the Cadia thing, do a massive tournament good vs evil and make the story outcome based off of the tournament outcome. Iirc they did it in the past, why not again?
They can do bfg then planet missions and stuff.
Base the fluff off of fan play. Then we can kinda have a say in the story line. It would be fun and a way of gw to include its fan base.
Part of the reason the timeline looks smashed is that the timeline is only detailed for a short period of time.
I'm sure that a ton of stuff was happening back through the last 10,000 years. It's just that GW hasn't gone back through and painstakingly detailed every minor event and campaign like has been done with the recent fluff. Why not? Because that's kinda silly, and a waste of time.
If you look at the "significance" of the M41 events, most of them wouldn't have even been worth writing about if they had happened in, say M36, or something.
Buy yeah, agreed on the cliffhanger being the draw of 40K. Players get to pretend that their battles are actually happening in a living universe. If we know the ending, that's sorta out the window. Like I had said before, the "setting" and the "timeline" are just a framework for you to play games with little toy soldiers. The setting exists how it does so that it is perpetually frozen in a time when all of these ridiculous factions can be warring for your tabletop entertainment.
GW routinely updates he story: through revamped codex releases that invalidate large swaths of previous "history".
Case in point: necrons. Went from soulless machines doing the will of the c'tan to soulless machines fighting each other, trading (?) with everyone, no more c'tan, etc. ( now what are they going to do about mars?)
So, the story never moves forward, but it certainly evolves. As long as they continue filling in the past, I'm good. Although I think the heresy needs to be kick started. It's gotten more than a bit regurgitated.
usmcmidn wrote: They should base the story off of the fans... For example the Cadia thing, do a massive tournament good vs evil and make the story outcome based off of the tournament outcome. Iirc they did it in the past, why not again?
They can do bfg then planet missions and stuff.
Base the fluff off of fan play. Then we can kinda have a say in the story line. It would be fun and a way of gw to include its fan base.
This might work.
They did that for Armaggedon 3. It just ends up being an Imperial victory because there's so many Space Marine players.
usmcmidn wrote: They should base the story off of the fans... For example the Cadia thing, do a massive tournament good vs evil and make the story outcome based off of the tournament outcome. Iirc they did it in the past, why not again?
They can do bfg then planet missions and stuff.
Base the fluff off of fan play. Then we can kinda have a say in the story line. It would be fun and a way of gw to include its fan base.
This might work.
They did that for Armaggedon 3. It just ends up being an Imperial victory because there's so many Space Marine players.
True. A FW campaign might ork, if all factions had an equal chance, regardless of player amount
Engaging the world wide gaming community to fight a campaign in order to determine the next 100 years of timeline would be a marketing coupe.
Do that once a year and you'd have a living universe driven by player participation. It would take 10 years to go through a 1,000 in the 40k timeline.
Further they could use the results to help drive power levels for codex releases to help tip things into knife edge balance. Add a bit of story telling in the process such as taking the names of certain units from top players / teams and integrating them into some fluff prior to the next campaign. This would be pure awesomesauce.
Heck, they could print books like Crusade of Fire each year detailing campaign details and how to send submissions and it would almost become a required purchase for most 40k'ers.
Imho, no. The timeline ends M41, and with the massive foreshadowing that GW has built up over the years, anything that would come out of delving into M42 would either result in a drastically different setting or be seriously disappointing. And both of these prospects have a high chance of negative repercussions for the IP. Retcons would have to be made, looming consequences (such as the Flesh Tearers being targeted for termination, to name just one example) would have to be discarded.
Besides, even though I personally would be interested in a fundamentally different M42 where, say, the drastic changes could render anything we know inconsequential, I do believe that there is ample potential in fleshing out the many millennia of history that have been barely touched so far. If you look at the timeline, half the stuff we know happens in M41. Surely, the other eras would have many grand stories to tell as well? Epic battles to be fought? Entire stellar empires could rise and fall in that timeframe. There is so much untapped potential, even just fleshing out the bits we already know (such as the aforementioned Age of Apostasy) should deliver enough fluff for dozens of books, codices or even new armies.
Really, it is like a bunch of historians and archaeologists just having finished mapping mankind's history from now all the way to the 14th century, and then instead of going back even further they turn their attention to the upcoming New Year's Eve and go "oh boy, I wonder what the new year is going to bring".
Manchu wrote:Its worth pointing out that FW books aren't depicting an alternate reality but the same setting as the one depicted in the codices and BL novels and FFG books.
Gav Thorpe and Andy Hoare still say otherwise. But we should better keep this in the other thread rather than detract from this debate. I've recently posted a reply, by the way - sorry for having dropped out on it for a few days.
It's the dawn of a new millennia, much will change, the core will stay the same as that's GW's golden goose. And you know what they say about slaying the goose which lays the golden eggs...
usmcmidn wrote: They should base the story off of the fans... For example the Cadia thing, do a massive tournament good vs evil and make the story outcome based off of the tournament outcome. Iirc they did it in the past, why not again?
They can do bfg then planet missions and stuff.
Base the fluff off of fan play. Then we can kinda have a say in the story line. It would be fun and a way of gw to include its fan base.
They did that. It was called Eye of Terror. And it changed nothing, because they didn't want to disappoint the losers. So the ending was a stalemate, just like Armageddon, despite being a massive Imperial Victory, is still an ongoing conflict because GW didn't want to piss off the Ork players who got thrashed.
Manchu wrote:Its worth pointing out that FW books aren't depicting an alternate reality but the same setting as the one depicted in the codices and BL novels and FFG books.
Gav Thorpe and Andy Hoare still say otherwise.
No they really don't -- at least not the extent that their opinions "matter" to the current position of GW, especially vis-a-vis the HH series.
Arcsquad12 wrote:They did that. It was called Eye of Terror. And it changed nothing, because they didn't want to disappoint the losers. So the ending was a stalemate, just like Armageddon, despite being a massive Imperial Victory, is still an ongoing conflict because GW didn't want to piss off the Ork players who got thrashed.
This lack of consequence keeps bothering me, but it extends far beyond the campaigns. I can understand the business reasons behind it, but on the other hand I do believe that a "living world" would make for a far more interesting setting.
What I would do is to take something smaller and let the players duke it out for that. Don't let them fight for the fate of the galaxy like in the Black Crusade ... just over a single star system, like in the Medusa campaign. This way, it shouldn't really hurt anyone when they lose. Also, I'd probably make it an annual thing, so that people can plot their revenge and (possibly) regain lost honor. Also, such campaigns are way easier to insert into the already existing history before M41, since they simply would not have far-reaching consequences that would need to be taken into consideration.
Manchu wrote:Its worth pointing out that FW books aren't depicting an alternate reality but the same setting as the one depicted in the codices and BL novels and FFG books.
Gav Thorpe and Andy Hoare still say otherwise.
No they really don't -- at least not the extent that their opinions "matter" to the current position of GW, especially vis-a-vis the HH series.
"Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong." Gav Thorpe
"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth." Andy Hoare
The lack of a "true representation" and the existence of "overlapping realities" does not sound like a single, uniform setting to me, sorry. You have your 40k, I have mine. And we're just two people - dakka has many more posters with their very own idea of 40k in their heads, in addition to the many novel authors or game designers that churn out licensed products for us to buy.
Go ahead and try to apply those two ex-employee's ruminations on the HH series, at least regarding your (halfway*)mistaken belief that they are talking about alternate realities signified by different authors. Sorry Lynata but those guys are behind the times. Just ask Graham McNeill about his new audio drama, as I already advised you.
* Andy Hoare is making a much bigger mistake than you, one that totally eclipses yours. I mean, people aren't buying Hunt for Voldarious because it was written by Andy Hoare -- other than his personal friends, of course.
clively wrote: Engaging the world wide gaming community to fight a campaign in order to determine the next 100 years of timeline would be a marketing coupe.
Have you guys forgotten about Armageddon and the Eye of Terror? They did exactly that. Problem is, with enough players and armies, suitably weighted according to player numbers, the results just even out. GW also backed themselves into a corner with the Eye of Terror, as the results dictated that Abaddons crusade be annihilated. But not wishing to alienate every Chaos player on the planet and drastically affect the storyline, they let it devolve into a stalemate.
I personally would love to see a small change in the setting. Nothing big though, push foward by like 15 years in game time when the 7th edition hits.
Changes would be simple: Finally conclude Armageddon/Cadia campaigns. Maybe kill off a special character.
Killing off a Special Character doesnt mean too much sense people can always play any earlier time (after all, Eldrad is dead for example and he is still a playable SC)
In 8th Edition maybe hint at a new massive campaign but its not needed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroothawk wrote: Counter question: Would you like Mat Ward to advance the storyline?
clively wrote: Engaging the world wide gaming community to fight a campaign in order to determine the next 100 years of timeline would be a marketing coupe.
Have you guys forgotten about Armageddon and the Eye of Terror? They did exactly that. Problem is, with enough players and armies, suitably weighted according to player numbers, the results just even out. GW also backed themselves into a corner with the Eye of Terror, as the results dictated that Abaddons crusade be annihilated. But not wishing to alienate every Chaos player on the planet and drastically affect the storyline, they let it devolve into a stalemate.
Your recall of the results is the exaCt opposite of what actually occurred. The campaign was officially declared in White Dwarf as a Chaos victory. Abaddon was successful. Iif anything it should be Creed getting executed considering how poorly the Imperials performed in the campaign. I have in the past posted the white dwarf final campaign results unedited in this forum and people are free to search for themselves. It has only been the Imperial sore losers that have been trying for years to argue their defeat into victory despite the explanation by GW of the results and the campaign system. There is none of this griping over any of the other campaigns that the Imperium did win, only the one where the Imperium lost.
It has been GW that has backed away from changing the status quo as a result of the Chaos victory, directly contradicting their earlier promises in White Dwarf of storyline change depending on the campaign results.
I think GW needs to further the story by declaring the Emperor dead, but make it interesting by saying that the Imperium discovered that he's been dead for hundreds of years (which was a deep dark secret known only to the high lords of terra) and that the golden throne is just a beacon through which thousands of psykers maintain the astronomican.
Have human morale bolstered by the fact that they've been keeping it together without the Emperor. They then make a patron saint of the Emperor and continue to worship him as their deity of war.
As it's been said, worldwide campaigns were a good idea at the very start, but quickly became broken because Imperials always win because of the fact that 75% of 40k players play Space marines of some flavor (Space marine vs. Space marine battles still equal an Imperium victory!) . Also, like it's been said, nothing ever changed. GW wants the setting to be a dead-end at the end of M41 where every faction is equal, so every campaign ended with a mysteriously math-evading stalemate.
Also, that can't happen now even if the campaign was balanced, because the current GW is not the awesome GW of the Golden Age of the late 90's/early 2000's. They are now just a miniatures store, not a group of people passionate about the hobby and their setting.
Your recall of the results is the exact opposite of what actually occurred. The campaign was officially declared in White Dwarf as a Chaos victory. Abaddon was successful. Iif anything it should be Creed getting executed considering how poorly the Imperials performed in the campaign.
It has only been the Chaos fans that have been trying for years to argue their defeat into victory despite the explanation by GW of the results and the campaign system.
It has been GW that has backed away from changing the status quo directly contradicting their earlier promises in White Dwarf of storyline change depending on the campaign results.
Which wasn't the obvious result? Anyone with more than 2 braincells would bet on a stalemate and win. Am sorry but this crappy idea of them giving up control is so far from any chance to happen as 40k is from reality.
Plus its getting worse.
I'd prefer a fan based campaign as fans may keep their promises where the company may not. Thus its always a temporary and local change, a "possible future" , one of many.
Do not misquote me. The White Dwarf result which was quoted verbatim, clearly declares it a Chaos victory. All hope wasn't lost for the Imperium with some small bright spots but nonetheless they lost the campaign. Trying to spin the campaign results otherwise in real life is the same as if Chaos players tried to spin the Heresy into Chaos winning. It is simply not what happened. It is information that was cited and which can be looked up by anyone with access to the sources and is clearly in black and white: a minor victory for Chaos. There is not a single mention of "draw" or "stalemate" anywhere in the article. Those words have only ever been used by Imperial players trying to downplay the victory by Chaos. A minor victory is not decisive but still a step better than a draw in most game victory scales. The principle is that it is bad sportsmanship to be unable to lose a match with good grace, and then to actually claim winning it instead. Such behavior would be ridiculous in a single 40K game, and the same should hold true for a campaign. If one side lost, admit it. The exact mechanics of the campaign were even explained in the White Dwarf article results roundup (including explicitly mentioning how the Forces of Disorder players were more organized than the Forces of Order players), yet people still persist in wanting to cling to conspiracy theories rather than admit that perhaps their side got outplayed.
If you are not aware of the history of what was happening at the time, do not try and make up stuff or try to spread misinformation about it as it seems there are already quite a few people that have heard the wrong information about what happened. Either that or you are one of those Imperial sore losers still begrudging any side except the Imperium actually winning a campaign. Not once do you hear about such complaints about any campaign in which the Imperium did come out ahead, from Ichar IV, to Armageddon 3, to the later Medusa campaign which came after the Eye of Terror campaign. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happens over the one where the Imperium lost. Coincidence? It is not even all Forces of Order players that try to spin the results. Although Eldar players might complain about Eldrad's death, they seemed accepting and even satisfied with their performance in the Eye of Terror campaign, such as the expulsion of Ahriman from the Webway and retaking most of one croneworld, and parts of another. I am not intending to paint all Imperial players with the same brush, but the level of sheer denial of what actually happened in the actual real life campaign I have only ever seen from Imperial players.
GW's promise of storyline change and advancement (Aus WD 282, Skeins of Fate article by Graham McNeill) was done at a time when Andy Chambers was still in charge 40K development. He was notable for pushing advancement of the storyline. The White Dwarf article preceding the campaign start made the allusion that a resounding Imperial victory might lead to Imperial resurgence and the High Lords to considering reforming the Legions, while a Chaos victory would lead to a time of greater darkness with Abaddon out of the Eye. Chaos won, but GW first downplayed the significance and then backtracked the timeline. It was also in the aftermath of this campaign that Andy Chambers left GW. It is unclear if there was ever a link between the two. Rumor (unconfirmed to this day) was that Andy Chambers was wanting to 1) Advance the storyline 2) Substantially change the 40K rules in the next edition rather than tweaking which the higher-ups at GW wanted, and that it was this disagreement over where to take the 40K IP that led to Andy departing.
In truth, even if GW had not wanted to radically upset the setting, it could have easily incorporated the results of the campaign while still effectively maintaining the status quo. There were hints of this with mentions in the subsequent Space Marine and Tau Codex of the Tau border being stripped of Imperial forces to reinforce the Cadian Gate, resulting in the burst of Tau expansion. This reflected exactly what happened in the campaign itself which saw Imperial players ignoring the Tau front. If GW had wanted to they could have had Abaddon break out of the Gate successfully, then be bogged down before reaching Terra due to Imperial reinforcements from elsewhere, yet this still weakening the Imperium as a whole due to other factions taking advantage of the weaknesses exposed elsewhere. Even if Cadia had been written as fallen, it wouldn't have meant the end of the Cadian line. Creed and the Cadians could have been written as gearing up for a campaign to retake their homeworld. In fact, there are again mentions of this in the 13th Black CrusadeBL publication, in which Creed calls upon Cadian regiments to return to contested Cadia and fight to free it from Abaddon.
Disclaimer: Before anyone tries to resort to ad hominem or suggest personal bias, I posted the White Dwarf results in this forum in the past, unedited. I also played Tyranids and Eldar during the actual Eye of Terror campaign so I was on both sides. The Tyranids lost in their chosen warzone despite the Force of Disorder winning the campaign. The Eldar won in theirs, despite the Forces of Order losing the campaign as a whole. I have no particular factional leanings in this matter, but simply a desire to get the facts of what did happen out there instead of all the hearsay and misinformation being spouted off by people that were either not present or blatantly partisan in their factional leanings.
I would say that GW could successfully move things forward... but only slightly.
For instance, we could have the period just after Cadia falls, and the Black Crusade presses on to the worlds leading toward Earth.
The problem is, the big ending, the climactic final battle, that will always be for the players to choose for themselves. Here's how mine goes:
All those sacrifices bring the Emperor to life as a new god, but one of order rather than chaos. While losing the war against chaos in the physical realm, a grand alliance of man and alien alike lead a strike into the Eye of Terror itself, guided by the only man who can navigate it: the universally beloved Kaldor Draigo. They are joined by Ynead, the newly born god of the Eldar craftworlds, created from the endless spiritstones gathered since the fall. They strike for Nurgle's garden and free the Eldar god Isha, who possesses a cure for the Plague of Unbelief. Aided now by numerous gods of order, there is a war in heaven that concludes with the madness of the warp cured. The gods are forever reduced in power and the warp itself calmed to a state unknown since the time of the Old Ones. There are no "psykers" as we think of them anymore, but we don't need navigators to use the warp. Without the warp, the psychic communal rage of the Orks eases, and they became a thinking, reasoning race that can successfully interact with other races as something other than an adversary. The Eldar are chastened for their failings but are recovering as a species. The Imperium owes it's survival to alien races it once abhorred, and in the pantheon of the church of the savior emperor there are now figures like Isha and Ynead who are also venerated. It is a new golden age for this galaxy, as the truth of science and the peace of diplomacy reign, and the sentient races of 41k unite against the Tyranid threat as one.
If you are not aware of the history of what was happening at the time, do not try and make up stuff or try to spread misinformation about it as it seems there are already quite a few people that have heard the wrong information about what happened.
Maybe its time for you to accept some people got their own WD and don't have to run with your illusions of a possibility any side could score a significant win, at all?
Like, reading said articles and without a doubt, not getting the impression you try to insert here, like making up that lots of people would believe in this mythical change of great portions of the background because WD stated so..
Sure enough subscribed to it, to sell new plastic crack, to even organize to play the rules, not the Fluff.
But GW did learn a few things. Especially to avoid such campaigns.
Either that or you are one of those Imperial sore losers still begrudging any side except the Imperium actually winning a campaign.
Look if all you got to say is to call one uninformed or a sore loser, maybe you are the sore one who begrudges GW because they didn't provide what YOU wanted ?
Iracundus wrote: I am not intending to paint all Imperial players with the same brush, but the level of sheer denial of what actually happened in the actual real life campaign I have only ever seen from Imperial players.
I don't think your whole post says what you think it says... I mean, you may retract from this Imperial = sore losers claim, anytime , anywhere, be my guest.
The White Dwarf article preceding the campaign start made the allusion that a resounding Imperial victory might lead to Imperial resurgence and the High Lords to considering reforming the Legions, while a Chaos victory would lead to a time of greater darkness with Abaddon out of the Eye.
And a "return of the Legions" doesn't raise suspicions?
GW would never have to deliver, they could add whatever stopped this from happening...
OtOH, the grimdarkness is always rising and Abby and friends got a new dex and the first in 6th ed too.
Oh. Really?
As hard is I scour this recent Codex Imperial Guard, can't find the loss of Cadia.
Must be the fact GW learned they are better off without a story-line.
In truth, even if GW had not wanted to radically upset the setting, it could have easily incorporated the results of the campaign while still effectively maintaining the status quo.
But they did.
At least the parts they deemed acceptable.
It was their campaign, their right to keep or drop.
Iracundus wrote: Even if Cadia had been written as fallen, it wouldn't have meant the end of the Cadian line. Creed and the Cadians could have been written as gearing up for a campaign to retake their homeworld.
Disagree.
Their singular Line of Imperial Guard representatives, was mostly Cadia. They also focused more on the Cadians after the EoT campaign in Imperial Guard codices.
A fallen Cadia would be lost. Lost as changed into a demon world, most likely swallowed by the warp. How to retake that? A contested Cadia however, is useful as none can be sure about its actual state and both parties still claim to "control" it.
Why should a 50% of a Line, here PLASTC Models, be stuck with a "has to retake their homeworld" ?
Because there is no part 2 of the campaign, ever.
Why?
Because GW found out they cannot control it as much as they like. Control is their creed now.
The time-window to paint the Cadians as campaigning to reconquer was closed when GW focused on Cadians as Guard "poster boyz".
Before this, Cadians as one of several renown sources would have been easily written into a GW controlled fluff source where Cadia is taken back by brute force even if Abby freely was on a rampage throughout the Galaxy.
Who would care if the IG had 6-8 sources for the most common, ie GW-mini supported Guardsmen?
They could slip this in, at their liking.
Now when so much is "Cadianized" in the IG sources, GW isn't going to move because of old campaigns. They may take from that pile of fluff, or leave it to sink to the bottom.
Where this failure at realizing " you don't include important parts of the setup in your open ended campaigns for general change" belongs to. The deepest parts IMO.
There sill never be anything but a galaxy-wide status quo. Consider the fluff that describes each race as being what will be in place for the life of 40K, other than in the situation of complete hand-wave ret-cons, like the Necrons.
-The Imperium is stagnant, but hanging on by a thread (as always).
-The Craftworld Eldar are dying out, while their darker cousins continue raiding.
-There will always be a Tyranid hive fleet looming on the edge of known space.
-Orks continue to have fun.
-Necrons brood in their pockets of their old Empire; the threat of them becoming resurgent always looms but never happens.
-The Tau are on the rise, but never "too" much of a rise.
-Chaos forces threaten to become ascendant, but never doing more than knocking the Imperials back to their "hanging by a thread" status.
The universe will never be more than a "what will happen next?" state.
It has only been the Chaos fans that have been trying for years to argue their defeat into victory despite the explanation by GW of the results and the campaign system.
claiming that is what I wrote, with the quote having my name and previous post attached as link. When in reality, I wrote the following:
It has only been the Imperial sore losers that have been trying for years to argue their defeat into victory despite the explanation by GW of the results and the campaign system.
Do not try to claim I wrote something that I did not write. That is deliberate falsification. If you are going to respond, do so in a mature manner instead of lying and mockery.
There was no Chaos defeat no matter how much you might try to down play the victory declared in White Dwarf:
Victory for Chaos! Not a complete victory, the forces of Order have held the line in many places and Cadia itself still defies the Arch Warmaster Abaddon. But nonetheless over eight weeks the forces ot Disorder have consistently out-fought and out-manoeuvred their opponents across the warzones of the Eye of Terror.
WD 287, Death by a Thousand Cuts by Andy Chambers
Whatever the ramifications or lack thereof of the campaign or GW's follow-up to their promises, the actual results of the player campaign was a Disorder victory. To do anything except accepting that is a disservice to sportsmanship and all the players that did play in the campaign. It is equivalent to being a sore loser over a 40K game and throwing a tantrum or claiming that you really won. It is not so much a matter of one faction being better or beating up another but the fact of players being sore losers in not losing gracefully. The fact you tried to claim Chaos players were the sore losers, to turn black into white, suggests you are just another one of many Imperial losers still having sour grapes over losing. There are many all over the Interweb as a cursory search of some 40K forums will show, and who post things in direct contradiction to what actually happened or what was stated in print, to the point of invoking elaborate conspiracies of GW cheating and favoring Chaos despite the actual campaign mechanics being revealed. Yes, even now nearly 10 years after the campaign. Last saw one about 2 months ago on another forum so they are still out there. Losing a game or losing a campaign should not result in such depths of denial of reality.
You also focus too much on the phrase "reforming the Legions" and miss the main point. An Imperial resurgence was definitely possible to write into the background if the Imperium had won.. Perhaps you failed to see the template already given previously in so many other campaigns or background published by GW. It occurred in the BFG rulebook, which showed precisely the same sort of story template as the 13th Black Crusade's event cards were laid out. The initial phase had Chaos surprise attacks and ascendance, followed by Imperial comeback and repulsing of Chaos, and everything settling down as before, with new Imperial glories etc... It occurred in the Armageddon 3 campaign to a lesser extent, with Imperial forces chasing off after Ghaz and his forces. It would have been easily possible for the Eye of Terror campaign to have followed that time worn template again if the Forces of Order had won. Except they didn't. The overall campaign results were showing a trend towards Disorder for the majority of the campaign and definitely towards the final end. Things getting more grimdark in later editions, but moving things back before the 13th Black Crusade, is not fulfillment of what was explained as being at stake with the campaign results, which was explicitly stated as influencing the development of the next edition of 40K:
The Eye of Terror campaign will be the hiatus of the second revelation, building on the release of the Inquisitor game, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, the Index Astartes First Founding series and Codex: Daemonhunters to show the power of Chaos in all its terrible glory. How the campaign concludes will have a big influence on the shape of things to come in the 4th edition of Warhammer 40,0000 and the eventual outcome of the third revelation...
Designers' Notes, WD 282, Andy Chambers
No vague handwaving there but an actual statement that the campaign results would influence the future of the following edition of 40K.
The subsequent Black Library publication 13th Black Crusade ended on a down note for the Imperium. The novel Cadian Blood, which takes place in early M42, likewise echoed the campaign results with explicitly mentioning how Abaddon had succeeded, and how more than half of Cadia was under Chaos control.
Your claim of how Cadia could never fall due to invalidation of the miniature product line does not hold up to scrutiny. Not every world that falls to Chaos becomes a daemon world so there is no requirement that Cadia has to do so. It is also easily possible to write in the founding of a "New Cadia" or even "Cadia" (if the old should be unrecoverable or destroyed), in memory of the original world. It would not be the first time that a name in 40K has been re-used, and not the first time that such has happened in real life history either.
Not really , you're just evading the subject. But I am not surprised at all.
I see the typical style of those who are caught with their interpretation of things....
To do anything except accepting that is a disservice to sportsmanship and all the players that did play in the campaign. The fact you tried to claim Chaos players were the sore losers, to turn black into white, suggests you are just another one of many Imperial losers still having sour grapes over losing.
And finally he shows his real colors. If thats all you want to tell us, these idiotic blames of a disservice , of sore losers, then I may suggest to get a hold on reality.
Wasn't part of this campaign as I wasn't foolish enough to believe in a reliability of these 'results'.
Your claim of how Cadia could never fall due to invalidation of the miniature product line does not hold up to scrutiny.
Sure it does.
As I said, they played Cadia up too much to let go. Before, Cadia was one of the bases. Important but not the end of all if it had to be retaken. Now we have this focus, most likely a marketing tool, contrary to the ancient take on an endless number of IG with so much variety. Its the image they can't offer.
GW got it right with most of their xenos background. Nothing that is "THE" craftworld, or "THE" ork klan, or "THE" necron dynasty, or "THE" Tau sept. But inside their imperial background, they run this different path. Can't have a possible permanent loss of Terra or Mars , even major homeworlds like Fenris or Baal would be iffy.
BTW I don't care if you like it or not.
Its a fact a intelligent company will not offer its centerpieces to fight over if they can't accept every outcome.
And GW has proven they aren't willing to bow to a "foreign" influence. Again, control is everything to them.
And finally he shows his real colors. If thats all you want to tell us, these idiotic blames of a disservice , of sore losers, then I may suggest to get a hold on reality.
Wasn't part of this campaign as I wasn't foolish enough to believe in a reliability of these 'results'.
You sound just like one of the deniers with your casting of doubt over official in print results. You don't believe in the existence of people still in denial over the Eye of Terror results?
Scroll down and you will see another poster claim the Imperium only lost because it was all due to those nasty cheating Chaos players and GW playing favorites.
Over and over again, the same pattern: Imperial players refusing to accept the White Dwarf printed results because it wasn't an Imperial victory.
They exhibit all the behaviors defined by Wikipedia as "sore loser behavior":
Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.
The campaign mechanics are explained. Doubting the "reliability" or legitimacy of this is looking for non-existent conspiracy and makes you sound petulant as the above deniers. There is no need for conspiracy when the herd stupidity of large groups of disorganized people can produce the same results.
Sure it does.
As I said, they played Cadia up too much to let go. Before, Cadia was one of the bases. Important but not the end of all if it had to be retaken. Now we have this focus, most likely a marketing tool, contrary to the ancient take on an endless number of IG with so much variety. Its the image they can't offer.
Of course they can let Cadia go. The possibilities have already been mentioned, just that you refuse to accept them as possibilities. The older IG Codex even depicted Guardsmen from many different worlds using Cadian equipment, but they weren't Cadians. If Cadia were to fall, to be replaced by a "New Cadia" or "Cadia", things would not change except now they would have a thirst for vengeance. Written background is easy to change. Change has happened before in the 40K universe and storyline and it could easily happen again if GW so wished it. All the anxiety over "breaking the setting" if anything changes is ridiculous considering steady change was a feature of the setting up til the Eye of Terror campaign.
BTW I don't care if you like it or not.
Its a fact a intelligent company will not offer its centerpieces to fight over if they can't accept every outcome.
And GW has proven they aren't willing to bow to a "foreign" influence. Again, control is everything to them.
I don't care what you think, only that you stop spreading misinformation about the campaign or claiming Chaos lost, when the actual in print evidence explicitly contradicts you. It does not help discussion in a background forum when you are spreading false information about the past. For there to be discussion in a shared fictional universe, there has to be agreement on the facts of the setting, and facts in real life.
BL author ADB is operating under no misconceptions as to the impact and result of the 13th Black Crusade:
...
The 13th Black Crusade was launched in order to allow Chaos into the Imperium, no longer almost completely blocked by Cadia. It was about breaking the dam, not to just say "LOL LET'S GO TO TERRA!", but to change the very dynamics of Chaos and the Imperium. The Chaos Marine can now sail fleets into Imperial space much, much, much easier than ever before. The dam is broken. The Crusade's goals were achieved. As far as I know, that's the current deal. The subject is confused by poor phrasing and general online assumptions clouding the issue.
But a crusade is a crusade. That sounds obvious, but a lot of people miss the relevance of the word, and the intent of the warrior declaring it. Anyone thinking a single Black Crusade was to take Terra, or see the Golden Throne fall, is probably missing the point. After all, historically, crusades weren't declared to conquer the whole world, or to wipe out all of Islam. They were, variously, declared to recover territory; to take Constantinople; to capture and/or sack a certain city; with heavy side orders of political, social and financial gain. A crusade is a campaign targeted at achieving a certain goal - one that, say, requires a massive army.
To take the "Abaddon is the thematic Antichrist" trope one step further, the forces of Hell never "just appear and take over the world". Even with the Rapture, there's supposed to be years of war on Earth between angels and demons. To the Imperium, that's just happened. The Astronomican blinks on and off now, losing thousands of vessels in the warp, and the Golden Throne is failing. We have events called things like "The Night of a Thousand Rebellions". And Cadia, the unbreakable fortress world that guarded the Eye, was cracked open and the dam is broken: Because of Abaddon's last crusade, Chaos fleets enter the Imperium practically unopposed now, compared to how it's been the last 10,000 years.
The reason there's no 14th Black Crusade is because there no longer needs to be. The gates are open. The Gates of Hell, literally, are broken open. Chaos Marines are basically free, like never before, to do as they please. And to assume "They all totally want to kill the Emperor" is a wild, wild miscalculation. There's nothing to say most of them these days, after years / centuries / millennia in Hell, give a toss about the Emperor. Most published lore we have cites Chaos Marines concerned with their own amassing of power, wealth and renown, rather than in idealistic campaigns to destroy the Imperium. How many warbands want nothing more than a weak enemy to prey upon? Countless, countless numbers of them. Especially in Legions like the Night Lords. The Gates of Hell being open is pretty much exactly what they wanted. Their goals are achieved.
That's not to say they don't want the Emperor / Imperium to fall. It's just that that's a background theme to most of their lives, given their other interests, desires, allegiances and obsessions. It's a great overall objective, but doesn't apply to daily existence. That can be hard to grasp if all you ever see Chaos Marines as are essentially models based on stereotypes of Legions, but as a living, breathing soldier spending eternity in Hell, things would get a little different.
One of the core themes of 40K has always seemed to be "Every single one of these enemy races could (or probably will) wipe out the Imperium if they sped up and/or got their crap together". And as befits the end of the Dark Millennium, Chaos is one of them. The One, in fact. The greatest threat, but also because they're the enemy within, as well as the threat from without.
So, no. Abaddon isn't a failure. He's only a failure in, well, the "frequently espoused by younger player" terms of believing he wants to take Terra, and all anyone like him could be interested in was "Just killing the Emperor". Bit of a shallow overlook, that.
I play as Cadian (or at least I collect Cadians, I dont actually play) and as much as I would hate see Cadia to fall. I would have prefered had GW just accepted the ending of the campaign and just do what you recomended Iracundus, a new Cadia with their goal to retake Cadia.
That would be a fun way to push the story foward, I would love it. Gives character to the Cadian players and boost the success and threat of the Chaos image
The campaign mechanics are explained. Doubting the "reliability" or legitimacy of this is looking for non-existent conspiracy and makes you sound petulant as the above deniers. There is no need for conspiracy when the herd stupidity of large groups of disorganized people can produce the same results.
Such improvement, now I am "petulant"...
Look, you can fill the whole interwebz with your rants, it would still benefit the thread if you started to listen to what I am saying, instead of blocking anything you don't want to hear with "walls of text".
The older IG Codex even depicted Guardsmen from many different worlds using Cadian equipment, but they weren't Cadians. If Cadia were to fall, to be replaced by a "New Cadia" or "Cadia", things would not change except now they would have a thirst for vengeance.
So you can buy the "not-cadians" who are on these shelves, looking like cadians. Sure....
Vengeance is unimportant in the story of the black crusades. The value of Cadia is not.
Written background is easy to change. Change has happened before in the 40K universe and storyline and it could easily happen again if GW so wished it.
So you admit I was right and its about GW keeping its grip on the course of their background?
Plus GW could easily re-write the campaign...as its old and many wouldn't remember it...
I don't care what you think, only that you stop spreading misinformation about the campaign or claiming Chaos lost, when the actual in print evidence explicitly contradicts you.
Misinformation in posted opinions, really?
I am aware youre completly lost on the fact: I did just turn your claim about "sore losers" around to show you how bad such a generalization is. Don't blame me for the tone of your posts. You could post without disclaimers if you didn't paint people with a broad brush first...
It does not help discussion in a background forum when you are spreading false information about the past. For there to be discussion in a shared fictional universe, there has to be agreement on the facts of the setting, and facts in real life.
There was nothing falsified by me.
Maybe a bit unaware of the outcome of my attempts to get you off of this line of questioning the personality of players by army or faction choice.
Call for facts? Get a 6th ed codex Chaos space marines: move on to pages 20, 25, 57.
Spot the current version of the 'facts'.
Including our current: 6th ed chaos = opening up the curtain of reality to unleash the demonic hordes and drag the eye closer to Terra fluff.
Still insisting the movement of the EoT wouldn't make Cadia unaccessible? Like your possibilities contradict the 6th fluff, so sticking with old fluff combined with less desirable buisness decisions like reprinting all of the boxes of IG has what on real life and facts?
So, no. Abaddon isn't a failure. He's only a failure in, well, the "frequently espoused by younger player" terms of believing he wants to take Terra, and all anyone like him could be interested in was "Just killing the Emperor". Bit of a shallow overlook, that.
Thats where an BL author says there is more to it than just this, but we all know the theme of Abby is still, and always will be: "death to the false emperor". Pretty clear in every single official GW source. May I request to look into the actual CSM dex? Written and as you seem to like the printed material, tell me is there anything to oppose the impression the major motivating factor of Abaddon is to get to Terra and do what his Primarch hadn't?
PS: Don't know if youre angry because you didn't get for x-mas the desired presents.
But consider this: I don't complain about your ongoing edits of your posts, which could mean its a " under construction" post or you are trying really hard to hide a problem.
So why is it feasible to complain about misinformation when I never altered any facts?
Don't try to sell us your opinion about the behaviour of players as facts.
You sound just like one of the deniers with your casting of doubt over official in print results.
So if I doubt a flawed setup of a campaign, I am a "denier" ?
Really, find help good sir.
You have attempted to deny that GW declared it a Chaos victory. One can have discussion about the campaign setup and rules but what is not in question is that in a particular WD, GW officially declared the campaign as played according to the rules that were actually implemented, a Chaos victory. As GW is the holder of the IP, what they say in print counts for more than anyone else, including you.
Because said possibilities provide..nothing. Except incompatibilities with current product and fluff.
There are no incompatibilities as already stated. You are making up non-existent incompatibilities to argue against any change.
Did you even read the possibilities? A newly founded Cadia II or Nova Cadia or whatever can easily make use of the same miniatures and even be descended from the original Cadians. It makes no difference to the final miniatures product. They would still be effectively Cadians. You are making up a non-existent hurdle. GW could even name the new planet Cadia again and claim the Cadians did so in memory of their lost world, leaving no re-branding necessary at all. There are many possibilities. Just because you cannot see them or personally close your mind off to them does not mean they do not exist.
I don't care what you think, only that you stop spreading misinformation about the campaign or claiming Chaos lost, when the actual in print evidence explicitly contradicts you.
Misinformation in posted opinions, really?
Yes because it is not an opinion who won in the Eye of Terror campaign. It is in published print and the sources are public knowledge and cited. Saying Chaos did not win the Eye of Terror campaign would be misinformation because it is not true, as declared by the published White Dwarf in 2003. Once again, GW owns the IP, so their publications establish what is fact in the fictional universe that is 40K. Any person can go look up the relevant White Dwarf article and find the relevant results and see with their own eyes confirmation of what I wrote earlier and show your statements false. That is why this is not "everything is opinion so I can say anything" issue. There are actual in print references by the IP holder. Trying to alter my earlier words is also misinformation because you are claiming I said something which was not actually said, i.e. a falsehood. That too is not "opinion" because it is also a fact that you altered what I said and claimed I said it when I did not.
Call for facts? Get a 6th ed codex Chaos space marines: move on to pages 20, 25, 57.
Spot the current version of the 'facts'.
Including our current: 6th ed chaos = opening up the curtain of reality to unleash the demonic hordes and drag the eye closer to Terra fluff.
Still insisting the movement of the EoT wouldn't make Cadia unaccessible? Like your possibilities contradict the 6th fluff, so sticking with old fluff combined with less desirable buisness decisions like reprinting all of the boxes of IG has what on real life and facts?
You've altered your wording again. Your claim was not "inaccessible" but that a fallen Cadia would become a daemon world. Of all the worlds fallen to Chaos, not every one becomes a daemon world. Multiple examples of this exist in the background, and of the Eye of Terror warzones fought over, only 1 (Ulthor) became a daemon world. Just because the warp is unleashed over a world does not instantly consign it to being a daemon world or make it unrecoverable. The example of Haranshemash is case in point. Moreover you neglect to factor in the Cadian pylons which hold back the warp. So your conclusion that if Cadia falls it would become a daemon world and hence suddenly render the Cadian line of miniatures unusable and hence suddenly some kind of big crisis for GW's product line up is overblown alarmist "sky is falling" reasoning. A fallen Cadia would be an occupied Cadia, not necessarily a daemon world.
The loss of a homeworld doesn't mean the end of a Guard line, as evidenced by the example of Tanith. The loss of their homeworld became a major part of their background. No reason why the same could not be the case for the huge number of Cadian regiments posted off Cadia at the moment of Cadia falling. Death or loss has never prevented people from fielding whatever miniatures they liked. There are plenty of special characters that are technically deceased in the current 40K time but people still buy the models and still field them. Again no reason why this should suddenly change for Cadia.
Movement of the current 40K time back to the onset of the 13th Black Crusade does not necessarily invalidate any of the events which did occur. It just means the perspective of the viewer/reader/narrator has been reset to an earlier date. The inclusion of Abaddon's planning around daemons in the latest Codex just explains the question readers have themselves raised: how can the numerically disadvantaged Chaos side hope to actually accomplish a drive towards Terra, and what was Abaddon thinking with a frontal assault against the Cadian Gate, given the expected Imperial response.
So why is it feasible to complain about misinformation when I never altered any facts?
Once again you did attempt to alter facts. You falsely quoted me, putting words I did not write into that quote, claiming I had written Chaos players were complaining about a defeat when no such thing actually happened. You contested the fact that GW wrote Chaos won in a published White Dwarf, casting aspersions on the "legitimacy" of the articles in White Dwarf, when it is a direct GW publication. Whether the campaign system could have been improved or not is not the issue. What is the issue is that an official verdict was reached and declared, and no amount of spin or denial of it or insinuations about the "reliability" or whatever of White Dwarf or the campaign system is going to undo what actually happened 9 years ago. Post-hoc grumbling over campaign system flaws is also possible dubious "sour grapes" style complaining given again the relative lack of such grumbling over campaign system flaws in other worldwide campaigns where the Imperium was declared the winner.
That is where the misinformation lies, because for any new reader that is unaware of what happened, they run the risk of being misinformed about what actually happened and what was actually published in 2003. Saying GW declared it a Chaos victory is not an opinion, because it is an actual real life fact that occurred in 2003.
The endless gyrations you have engaged in to argue that Cadia did not fall and cannot possibly fall is no different from all the other tactics used by all the Imperial sore losers over the years attempting to spin away a loss. The fall of Cadia was perfectly possible and still is. Change by the writer and holder of the IP is always possible, merely that GW has chosen to take the easier path of stasis, which was a change from their earlier policy of steady year advancement.
And finally your resorting to irrelevant adhominem over xmas merely shows the lack of any viable relevant content related to the discussion at hand. Xmas has no relevance to the issue of the Eye of Terror campaign. People refusing to accept a campaign loss is relevant. People honestly genuinely mistaken over the results to the point of believing it was a massive Imperial victory when it was not, is relevant.
Personally, I'd love to see one of the "lost Primarchs" from the initial establishment of the Space Marines show back up at the head of an entire legion. I'd love to see them return, after having been on a light-speed journey for 40+ thousand years in intentional cryo-, a last ditch effort from the Emperor to provide for his people. They return with a full STC database with what were some of the most senior Mechanicum of the period.
All of that, only to encounter the Administratum and their determintation to rule in the Emperor's place and the revulsion and terror of the STC's and Space Marines in Legion strength.
Where it spins off from there? Depends on how the story is written.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: Personally, I'd love to see one of the "lost Primarchs" from the initial establishment of the Space Marines show back up at the head of an entire legion. I'd love to see them return, after having been on a light-speed journey for 40+ thousand years in intentional cryo-, a last ditch effort from the Emperor to provide for his people. They return with a full STC database with what were some of the most senior Mechanicum of the period.
All of that, only to encounter the Administratum and their determintation to rule in the Emperor's place and the revulsion and terror of the STC's and Space Marines in Legion strength.
Where it spins off from there? Depends on how the story is written.
This idea is (IMHO) magnificent. Actually, unlike some others, it would spawn another new codex probably! Of course, it would likely be a new Imperial codex, but it might be a third chaos dex too.
All I want is a small advancement of about 100-300 years, enough for a new Xenos codex.
Personally, I want to see less spess mareens, more IG and aliens. A bit more information into the Catchan regiments, the Old Ones, the Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Orks, all of them. They should give Matt Ward some Maternity Leave while they do it though, otherwise all we'll get is Ultramarines, Black Templars, and Grey Knights murdering everything, including the Battle Sisters.
The new FFGRPGOnly War (p. 319) has a bit where it says the Administratum is aware of at least 3 dozen worlds called Nova Cadia, presumably founded by Cadian regiments. Cadia itself is not critical for the continuation of the Cadian miniature line at all.
LlamaAgility wrote: All I want is a small advancement of about 100-300 years, enough for a new Xenos codex.
Why do they need to advance the setting to introduce another xenos book? What exactly will happen in 300 years that will warrant it? The setting hasn't advanced since 2nd edition, and they've added three xenos books since then.
There's plenty of xenos factions in the background already that can be fleshed out with a full book, and shoehorned into the fluff the way the Tau, Dark Eldar and Necrons were.
This idea is (IMHO) magnificent. Actually, unlike some others, it would spawn another new codex probably! Of course, it would likely be a new Imperial codex, but it might be a third chaos dex too.
All I want is a small advancement of about 100-300 years, enough for a new Xenos codex.
Well considering most people just want it to be foward 10 years with GW to come out and offically say "Imperials defeated the Orks at Armageddon yet lost Cadia" (something that pretty much is already obvious) What you are asking for is actually a lot lol
Or my idea could spin off something else entirely. Afterall, the returning group would *KNOW* that the Emperor is not a god, and that there is no such thing as the omnisiah. If they managed to escape Terra, they would be a natural focus point for disaffected factions within the Imperium.
Having been a Warhammer fan for years, the cliffhangar is annoying as hell.
I don't want something catastrophic, I just wanna know what the fluff is going on. There's been so much crap that's been hinted or foreshadowed with no defined answer. For all those "oh you're supposed to fill them in" well bullcrap, no one I know has taken that stance or done such a thing on their own, people don't do that. If the story is set and given and we have a slot to play within, we don't want to write in the rest of it on our own, to a point we expect the slot to be expanded on by the game producers.
As I said, I don't want something super catastrophic, but I would like them to finish 1/1000th of the freaking foreshadowing they've done over the years..
Who are the Tyranids and where are they coming from? Why are they found genetically entwined with creatures in our sectors? What did the Necrons have to do with the Imperial Cult and what meddling did they do in the genetics of humans? Is the Outsider the Dragon of Mars for certain? What crazy gak are the Tau actually doing to assimilate races? What happened to the 50 different Space Marine leaders that have vanished and could we at least have a HINT of their stories? What's the fluffing deal with O'Shavah? WHO ARE THE LOST LEGIONS?! What happened to the "renegade" non-chaos marine factions who don't believe in the Emperor? When will the Demiurg ever get a legit mention outside of Gothic?
Its one thing to foreshadow things for players to debate about, its another when you're whole freaking universe is constructed of that only.
DestructerPeach wrote: Another instance where this could be done is with the Gothic War, also known as Abbadon's 12th Black Crusade; an enormous plethora of invasions and a massive campaign that resulted in hundreds of planetary invasions, space battles, and the struggle for the control or destruction of the Blackstone Fortresses. This war alone would give players a myriad of gameplay options. Furthermore, from a lore-based perspective, it would revive the importance of the Eldar and bring them back into the loop as key players in the fate of the galaxy (the freaking Talismans of Vaul can obliterate a freaking C'Tan! Let alone a planet!) in addition to bringing the back-story of the Eldar back into importance.
Having an entire - and still available - game based around it wasn't enough? As a 40k expansion, it would be very hard to do, as the most important parts of the Gothic War were naval. Just grab the rules (they're all free), buy a small fleet, and play some linked games of BFG and 40k.
Shadowclaimer wrote: I would like them to finish 1/1000th of the freaking foreshadowing they've done over the years..
Who are the Tyranids and where are they coming from? Why are they found genetically entwined with creatures in our sectors? What did the Necrons have to do with the Imperial Cult and what meddling did they do in the genetics of humans? Is the Outsider the Dragon of Mars for certain? What crazy gak are the Tau actually doing to assimilate races? What happened to the 50 different Space Marine leaders that have vanished and could we at least have a HINT of their stories? What's the fluffing deal with O'Shavah? WHO ARE THE LOST LEGIONS?! What happened to the "renegade" non-chaos marine factions who don't believe in the Emperor? When will the Demiurg ever get a legit mention outside of Gothic?
Its one thing to foreshadow things for players to debate about, its another when you're whole freaking universe is constructed of that only.
Answering those questions would be a great disappointment for many players. I know I would hate it. I like to have mystery and suspense in my game setting.
DestructerPeach wrote: Another instance where this could be done is with the Gothic War, also known as Abbadon's 12th Black Crusade; an enormous plethora of invasions and a massive campaign that resulted in hundreds of planetary invasions, space battles, and the struggle for the control or destruction of the Blackstone Fortresses. This war alone would give players a myriad of gameplay options. Furthermore, from a lore-based perspective, it would revive the importance of the Eldar and bring them back into the loop as key players in the fate of the galaxy (the freaking Talismans of Vaul can obliterate a freaking C'Tan! Let alone a planet!) in addition to bringing the back-story of the Eldar back into importance.
Having an entire - and still available - game based around it wasn't enough? As a 40k expansion, it would be very hard to do, as the most important parts of the Gothic War were naval. Just grab the rules (they're all free), buy a small fleet, and play some linked games of BFG and 40k.
Playing through BFG campaigns is some of the most fun I've ever had.
would like them to finish 1/1000th of the freaking foreshadowing they've done over the years..
Who are the Tyranids and where are they coming from? Why are they found genetically entwined with creatures in our sectors? What did the Necrons have to do with the Imperial Cult and what meddling did they do in the genetics of humans? Is the Outsider the Dragon of Mars for certain? What crazy gak are the Tau actually doing to assimilate races? What happened to the 50 different Space Marine leaders that have vanished and could we at least have a HINT of their stories? What's the fluffing deal with O'Shavah? WHO ARE THE LOST LEGIONS?! What happened to the "renegade" non-chaos marine factions who don't believe in the Emperor? When will the Demiurg ever get a legit mention outside of Gothic?
Its one thing to foreshadow things for players to debate about, its another when you're whole freaking universe is constructed of that only.
Those are all pretty big questions (minus the last 2 which, the renegade one we already know, they are treated the same as Chaos because the marines are traitors)
I want them to just say the stuff we all already pretty much assumed is going to happen actually happened. Everyone knows the Orks lost the 3rd Armagedon war, GW can come out and say in the 42nd M the Orks are finally destroyed on the planet. Something small works. You dont want to ruin the mysteries that some people like Kaldor like
Shadowclaimer wrote: I would like them to finish 1/1000th of the freaking foreshadowing they've done over the years..
Who are the Tyranids and where are they coming from? Why are they found genetically entwined with creatures in our sectors? What did the Necrons have to do with the Imperial Cult and what meddling did they do in the genetics of humans? Is the Outsider the Dragon of Mars for certain? What crazy gak are the Tau actually doing to assimilate races? What happened to the 50 different Space Marine leaders that have vanished and could we at least have a HINT of their stories? What's the fluffing deal with O'Shavah? WHO ARE THE LOST LEGIONS?! What happened to the "renegade" non-chaos marine factions who don't believe in the Emperor? When will the Demiurg ever get a legit mention outside of Gothic?
Its one thing to foreshadow things for players to debate about, its another when you're whole freaking universe is constructed of that only.
Answering those questions would be a great disappointment for many players. I know I would hate it. I like to have mystery and suspense in my game setting.
DestructerPeach wrote: Another instance where this could be done is with the Gothic War, also known as Abbadon's 12th Black Crusade; an enormous plethora of invasions and a massive campaign that resulted in hundreds of planetary invasions, space battles, and the struggle for the control or destruction of the Blackstone Fortresses. This war alone would give players a myriad of gameplay options. Furthermore, from a lore-based perspective, it would revive the importance of the Eldar and bring them back into the loop as key players in the fate of the galaxy (the freaking Talismans of Vaul can obliterate a freaking C'Tan! Let alone a planet!) in addition to bringing the back-story of the Eldar back into importance.
Having an entire - and still available - game based around it wasn't enough? As a 40k expansion, it would be very hard to do, as the most important parts of the Gothic War were naval. Just grab the rules (they're all free), buy a small fleet, and play some linked games of BFG and 40k.
Playing through BFG campaigns is some of the most fun I've ever had.
That's not mystery though, that's just invalidation. They state something's up and that's it. It wouldn't ruin the fun to answer a few questions every 5 years and create new ones.
would like them to finish 1/1000th of the freaking foreshadowing they've done over the years..
Who are the Tyranids and where are they coming from? Why are they found genetically entwined with creatures in our sectors? What did the Necrons have to do with the Imperial Cult and what meddling did they do in the genetics of humans? Is the Outsider the Dragon of Mars for certain? What crazy gak are the Tau actually doing to assimilate races? What happened to the 50 different Space Marine leaders that have vanished and could we at least have a HINT of their stories? What's the fluffing deal with O'Shavah? WHO ARE THE LOST LEGIONS?! What happened to the "renegade" non-chaos marine factions who don't believe in the Emperor? When will the Demiurg ever get a legit mention outside of Gothic?
Its one thing to foreshadow things for players to debate about, its another when you're whole freaking universe is constructed of that only.
Those are all pretty big questions (minus the last 2 which, the renegade one we already know, they are treated the same as Chaos because the marines are traitors)
I want them to just say the stuff we all already pretty much assumed is going to happen actually happened. Everyone knows the Orks lost the 3rd Armagedon war, GW can come out and say in the 42nd M the Orks are finally destroyed on the planet. Something small works. You dont want to ruin the mysteries that some people like Kaldor like
Well I know they're treated like Traitors, I moreso mean they used to talk about "renegade chapters" and now there really aren't any mentions of them.
Shadowclaimer wrote: That's not mystery though, that's just invalidation. They state something's up and that's it. It wouldn't ruin the fun to answer a few questions every 5 years and create new ones.
I disagree. A large part of the charm of the 40K background is the '5 minutes to midnight' feel, and moving the timeline forward would ruin that.
Shadowclaimer wrote: That's not mystery though, that's just invalidation. They state something's up and that's it. It wouldn't ruin the fun to answer a few questions every 5 years and create new ones.
As a Tyranid player, I can honestly say, while I wish they'd get a bit more specific about the information they present, I hope they never, ever, at all, expand on the origins of the race. Yes, I want to hear more specifics of how they assimilate genetics or consume a planet. But their mysterious origins is what makes the what they are. All we know is they're some seemingly unstoppable force of nature from another galaxy, which after tearing through a dozen galaxies already, has its sights set on ours.
I don't need to know if they're running from something. I don't need to know if they're some galactic vacuum cleaner. I don't need to know if they're an ant colony some faraway alien spilled chemical waste on. Their mysterious origin adds to the horror of the race. Revealing it will kill that part of the appeal.
Yes, GW need to do something. Moving the setting forward isn't the answer, because people won't get what they want - nothing will change, the Imperium won't enter a golden age, Chaos won't win, the Tyranids won't eat everything. We'll just get new stories, which can be done by expanding on the parts of the setting previously ignored. Leave the current timeline as the freeze frame of the killing blow to the Imperium, and expand some of the bits of fluff fans have been screaming for.
I am in the fleshing out the past camp. You have hundreds upon hundreds of years to have s*** going down, you can really do something with that and if done right won' t contradict current fluff which would really p*** gamers off
Shadowclaimer wrote: That's not mystery though, that's just invalidation. They state something's up and that's it. It wouldn't ruin the fun to answer a few questions every 5 years and create new ones.
I disagree. A large part of the charm of the 40K background is the '5 minutes to midnight' feel, and moving the timeline forward would ruin that.
Yes but as has been repeatedly stated you can keep the "5 minutes to midnight" fell very easily. Its not hard to have things be resolved and create new problems. For instance if they had Cadia fall, they have a plethora of other options to add to the problem. Also then you can add that the Cadians are driven to reclaim theyre lost world. People arent really asking for a definite answer to who survives this and for grand sweeping things to take place like another Great Crusade. We want SOMETHING to happen.
Shadowclaimer wrote: That's not mystery though, that's just invalidation. They state something's up and that's it. It wouldn't ruin the fun to answer a few questions every 5 years and create new ones.
I disagree. A large part of the charm of the 40K background is the '5 minutes to midnight' feel, and moving the timeline forward would ruin that.
Yes but as has been repeatedly stated you can keep the "5 minutes to midnight" fell very easily. Its not hard to have things be resolved and create new problems. For instance if they had Cadia fall, they have a plethora of other options to add to the problem. Also then you can add that the Cadians are driven to reclaim theyre lost world. People arent really asking for a definite answer to who survives this and for grand sweeping things to take place like another Great Crusade. We want SOMETHING to happen.
The problem is that they've built this '5 minutes to midnight' feel. If you then take it past midnight you invalidate everything. Because, at midnight, something big has to happen. That's the whole point. 5 minutes to midnight means 'on the cusp of disaster' or 'right on the brink'. The current setting has the Imperium teetering on the edge of a cliff that they've been inexorably drawing closer to over the last ten thousand years. You can't just push them over the edge, only to have them caught on a tree branch. This isn't a story that needs to be resolved and advanced, it's a blank setting within which we can play out our own stories.
I'm kind of torn over it. I don't play the table-top game, just content myself with the modelling and reading the lore, but I can still see how a massive change such as the Emperor dying/resurrected or Chaos breaking through to Terra would have a massive negative impact upon the established players. Indeed, I can also see how the 'cliffhanger draw' stated by other posters is the basis of the appeal of Warhammer 40K - it's what drew me in. However on the other hand, I can sympathise with those who wish for an advancement. It seems GW is building up a whole plethora of tantalizing cliffhangers and mysteries, but is completely forbidding us from viewing even snapshots of what is to come. Personally, I disagree with the premise that it is then the fan's own imagination that is to supply the 'future' as, stated by previous posters, many of us are hoping that GW and BL authors to develop a polished account of what is to come, even if we can dream up solutions to the aforementioned cliffhangers.
Again, I also have to personally disagree upon a FULL shedding of light upon the Great Crusade era. Whilst, certainly, GW should, in my opinion, outline a good chunk of the events of this period, if not only to provide players with a greater scope for battles, in my opinion it is the mystery of this period that makes the 40th Millennium so compelling. If this route is to be taken, why not start with all those eras such as the Age of Apostasy or The Age of Redemption WITHIN the period already presented.
I think essentially what I would like to see is not a huge scale 'Primarchs returning, Emperor turning into God' advancement, but rather small incursions into the 42nd Millennium. I for one want the Salamanders to gain a few more of the lost relics of Vulkan, or find out a little more of what Cypher is up to, and it's not just limited to the Imperium - what state is the Eldar 'Soul Circuit' in? Can the Tyranids ever be stalled? But these are just my opinions - I would not expect everyone to subscribe to them. Possibly, what is needed is a little less of the 'cliffhangers' and a bit more of the stalemates, not in the Armageddon or Cadia sense, but maybe more of a 'Cadia lost, but other sectors won back - providing scope for change and for continuity to appease all fans. I don't know, I just hope I made sense from a non-player point of view.
DestructerPeach wrote: We risk sacrificing everything we know and love about 40k just because we are unable to deal with the suspense and our own impatience. I say embrace the suspense; it's what makes the story so enthralling; and immerse ourselves in the lore we currently haven't explored.
I don't think anything really huge should be changed but i do like to see character growth. Like seeing Lysander go from a Vet Sgt in a previous addition to a captain. that was kind of cool. or the FW character Carab Culln and his multiple promotions. All of which could be down by an individual player running their own campaigns. In fact i am pretty sure (don't quote me) that FW guys just play really big games and then write everything down and sell it as fluff.
@Baldsmug - I'm with you on that one, but perhaps not on some of the more well known characters such as Calgar, Lysandar etc. I'd like to hear more on some of the more obscure characters. What about Kayvaan Shrike, or Vulkan He'stan's adventures (Though Nick Kyme's 'Circle of Fire' Trilogy may explain this). And like you say, FW has produced quite a few character models - why not hear more about them?
Of course, we're looking at it from an Imperial slant, there has to be many more characters in the other races that can be expanded upon providing progression, without endangering the current 'feel' of 40K (which I still regard to be pretty damn epic).
Warpig1815 wrote: @Baldsmug - I'm with you on that one, but perhaps not on some of the more well known characters such as Calgar, Lysandar etc. I'd like to hear more on some of the more obscure characters. What about Kayvaan Shrike, or Vulkan He'stan's adventures (Though Nick Kyme's 'Circle of Fire' Trilogy may explain this). And like you say, FW has produced quite a few character models - why not hear more about them?
Of course, we're looking at it from an Imperial slant, there has to be many more characters in the other races that can be expanded upon providing progression, without endangering the current 'feel' of 40K (which I still regard to be pretty damn epic).
I agree. but it would be cool to see Chapter Master Lysander or maybe a Vulkan Argos or Vulkan Tsu Gan with an additional relic.
I don't know much about the other chapters relics, but I gather Vulkan He'stan is the user of Salamander Relics. Out of 9, 4 more have to be found. So GW could advance the 'storyline' (If people wish to insist it is only a setting, but I personally disagree) in this manner by finding more. However they seem content to have them remain a mystery. I suppose it allows for an aura of mystique - I myself am going to convert a captain with a unique dragon-winged jump pack in representation of the 'Unbound Flame' Relic, but I would rather GW simply told us what it is, simply a sense of progression.
clively wrote: Engaging the world wide gaming community to fight a campaign in order to determine the next 100 years of timeline would be a marketing coupe.
Have you guys forgotten about Armageddon and the Eye of Terror? They did exactly that. Problem is, with enough players and armies, suitably weighted according to player numbers, the results just even out. GW also backed themselves into a corner with the Eye of Terror, as the results dictated that Abaddons crusade be annihilated. But not wishing to alienate every Chaos player on the planet and drastically affect the storyline, they let it devolve into a stalemate.
No it didn't.... Eye of terror was a win in space, but a victory for the Imperial forces on the ground.
The Imperium lost cadia through that campaign.
I played in that campagin and I was sided with chaos with my renegade astartes and the results came in and Chaos won. Because they were more chaos players than marine players at the time D:
clively wrote: Engaging the world wide gaming community to fight a campaign in order to determine the next 100 years of timeline would be a marketing coupe.
Have you guys forgotten about Armageddon and the Eye of Terror? They did exactly that. Problem is, with enough players and armies, suitably weighted according to player numbers, the results just even out. GW also backed themselves into a corner with the Eye of Terror, as the results dictated that Abaddons crusade be annihilated. But not wishing to alienate every Chaos player on the planet and drastically affect the storyline, they let it devolve into a stalemate.
No it didn't.... Eye of terror was a win in space, but a victory for the Imperial forces on the ground.
The Imperium lost cadia through that campaign.
I played in that campagin and I was sided with chaos with my renegade astartes and the results came in and Chaos won. Because they were more chaos players than marine players at the time D:
It doesn't matter. The point is that GW didn't want to alienate part of their player base by destroying a key part of the background. Player guided campaigns are much better run in places like Medusa V where the outcome will not spoil the setting, no matter who wins. And really, that's the entire point of the 40K setting. It leaves huge gaps that we as players can fill in with our games.
Yeah, move it forward, it's getting stale. Have the Emperor die and Roboute come back to life, Cadia get nuked, Tyranids taken off pause.... It's been the same for 30 odd years apart from a new race here and there and it seems a bit lazy. Everything 'new' that happens is something that happened in the past.
Having said that I don't get all of the doom and gloom about the situation of the Imperium. They're still the largest empire in the galaxy with the ability to create millions of Space Marines at will and access to billions of Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy. The whole 'red tape is dooming the imperium' stuff is a bit superfluous, as is the premise that the ideals of the imperium got crushed by the Horus Heresy. AFAIK billions of people worked stupid hours doing gakky work under the Emperor too and there was loads of red tape back then as well [see Horus going apeshit at administrators from Terra].
So i a bit of a rambling way my big complaint is that GW have failed to create a 'climax' to the 40K universe and need to advance it in order for this to happen.
To the OP I think advancing the story line in some areas would be great, but as far as the 13th Black Crusade and the over all story no. Though I would like to see more involement by the Necrons especially after the new fluff they got which if GW expanded on they could prolong the 13th Black Crusade allowing them or the players to creat new campaigns without affecting the over all story line to much if at all and we could go into the 42m . What I would like them to go into is the Fourth phase expansion by the Tau on the Eastern Fringe or even a new hive fleet in that area of space, prehaps both with a WAAAGH on top just for fun. For I really want to see more done with the Eastern Fringe and with a rumored Tau codex coming out in May a Fourth phase expansion would be cool to see. Though I'm not 100% sure that the Third phase is done sounds like it is, but I'm not sure. So feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Quick question for you Kaldor. I know you like the setting and dont want it to see it advance because you like the approach to doomsday thing.
However would you be okay if GW did these things, simply coming out and saying the things we already know are going to happen.
Starting Tau conquest (the 4th whatever its called)
New Tyranid Hive fleet arriving and it being named
The Imperium finally driving the Orks off Armageddon
All of those are things we know is going to happen, the question is simply when. Would you care if the 7th edition Codex simply stated "The Orks were defated on Armageddon with the Imperial forces chasing the Ork warboss and his survivors" instead of the current "there is massive fighting there even though the Imperium has destroyed the Ork warmachine causing their warboss to flee the sector"
Also would you care if they said in 7th "the year is 005 M42" ?
Im actually wondering if you are completely against any changes or if you would be okay with very small advances that dont effect the overall feel of the setting. You seem to be the most vocal on this topic so I wanted to understand your opinion better.
Starting Tau conquest (the 4th whatever its called)
Sure
Galdos wrote: New Tyranid Hive fleet arriving and it being named
I guess. I think I'd prefer to simply expand the devastation they've already done to this galaxy. And I'd definitely prefer to see an new fleet incoming rather than actually here.
The Imperium finally driving the Orks off Armageddon
No, I'd rather see the Imperium use exterminatus. The ability of the planet to contribute to the Imperium is effectively nil, at the end of the third war. I'd prefer to see the Imperium cut their losses.
Also would you care if they said in 7th "the year is 005 M42" ?
This I would care very much about. Nearly everything in the studio background is driving at this feeling that something big is going to happen when the clock ticks over to M42. I don't think it would be good to move it past that point without having something big happen, and since I don't want something big to happen I don't want to see the timeline driven past that point.
Im actually wondering if you are completely against any changes or if you would be okay with very small advances that dont effect the overall feel of the setting. You seem to be the most vocal on this topic so I wanted to understand your opinion better.
I think for the most part the smaller changes that won't drastically effect the setting can be shoe-horned in without having to drive the storyline into M42, which is the absolute cut-off for me.
Personally im cool with GW advancing things as they have been, very slowly. We've had a couple of players killed off (Elrad Ulthan and Tycho) The Tyranids get another fleet every codex, The Tau have made a new appearance adding another facet to the universe. Even the Time of Ending with the Golden Throne starting to fail is something that has been introduced in the last few editions.
That said it woudl be kind of cool to have a few events happen. Nothing too shocking and doesnt have to advance the timeline too much but something to shake things up just a little would be a welcome change.
People clamouring for a WH 50k shoudl heed well the rumours flying about 10 years ago where the Blood Angels were going to turn to Chaos, the Ultamarines go rogue and Cypher returns to Terra to become the new emperor. That would have been disastarous.
Also the Star Wars anology is interesting. Some of the 'Post' Saga fiction was great. On the other hand People wanting to know where the Tyranids came from should think 'did we ever really need to know what the Force is?' '
In short the setting is fine, GW already seem all too willing to retcon things already but they seem to advance things, albeit at a glacial pace though Codexes and Rule books. Im happy with that. I've spent a lot of time in this universe and i;d hate to see it change too drastically
The Imperium finally driving the Orks off Armageddon
No, I'd rather see the Imperium use exterminatus. The ability of the planet to contribute to the Imperium is effectively nil, at the end of the third war. I'd prefer to see the Imperium cut their losses.
Except that you and I both know that won't happen, and the Imperium knows it as well. Armageddon is one of the most vital manufacturing centers in the Segmentum Solar next to Mars. They'd sooner give up the entire Eastern Fringe than let the planet fall. The war is ongoing, but that hasn't stopped Imperial shipping from trucking out regiments and armor to other sectors. If Cadia can still deploy Shock Troopers throughout the galaxy while under siege by the massed forces of Chaos, then Armageddon can do the same.
The Imperium finally driving the Orks off Armageddon
No, I'd rather see the Imperium use exterminatus. The ability of the planet to contribute to the Imperium is effectively nil, at the end of the third war. I'd prefer to see the Imperium cut their losses.
Except that you and I both know that won't happen, and the Imperium knows it as well. Armageddon is one of the most vital manufacturing centers in the Segmentum Solar next to Mars. They'd sooner give up the entire Eastern Fringe than let the planet fall. The war is ongoing, but that hasn't stopped Imperial shipping from trucking out regiments and armor to other sectors. If Cadia can still deploy Shock Troopers throughout the galaxy while under siege by the massed forces of Chaos, then Armageddon can do the same.
Not any more it's not. The workers are dead, the manufactorums destroyed, the infrastructure shattered. I mean, I'm just going by the outcome of Helsreach which I finished the other day, but Armageddon is nothing but a token battlefield any more. There's nothing left to save.
I have read that book and i thought it was just Helsreach that sufferd that badly everywhere else suffered to but Helsreach got hit worse than anywhere else. If I remember correctly it was seen as a doomed mission from the start by the Black Templer themselves. Also were there not like a dozen if not more cities like Helsreach. I could be wrong it has been a while since I read the book.
Also on topic the Eastern Fringe would be cool place to some story movement.
Gunhead1 wrote: I have read that book and i thought it was just Helsreach that sufferd that badly everywhere else suffered to but Helsreach got hit worse than anywhere else. If I remember correctly it was seen as a doomed mission from the start by the Black Templer themselves. Also were there not like a dozen if not more cities like Helsreach. I could be wrong it has been a while since I read the book.
Also on topic the Eastern Fringe would be cool place to some story movement.
No, Helsreach was one of the ones that got off lightly compared to the others. I think there were at least three other hives that were completely destroyed, and I can only assume the others took as much of a pounding as Helsreach did. Helsreach still had pockets of survivors at the end (Sarren, for example, was still holding out somewhere and survived the battle) and was classified as a victory.
The Imperium finally driving the Orks off Armageddon
No, I'd rather see the Imperium use exterminatus. The ability of the planet to contribute to the Imperium is effectively nil, at the end of the third war. I'd prefer to see the Imperium cut their losses.
Except that you and I both know that won't happen, and the Imperium knows it as well. Armageddon is one of the most vital manufacturing centers in the Segmentum Solar next to Mars. They'd sooner give up the entire Eastern Fringe than let the planet fall. The war is ongoing, but that hasn't stopped Imperial shipping from trucking out regiments and armor to other sectors. If Cadia can still deploy Shock Troopers throughout the galaxy while under siege by the massed forces of Chaos, then Armageddon can do the same.
Not any more it's not. The workers are dead, the manufactorums destroyed, the infrastructure shattered. I mean, I'm just going by the outcome of Helsreach which I finished the other day, but Armageddon is nothing but a token battlefield any more. There's nothing left to save.
Even with nothing left to save, the IoM isn't going to give up the fight and an exterminatus would just be the most lame ending to the war you can have.
nomotog wrote: Even with nothing left to save, the IoM isn't going to give up the fight and an exterminatus would just be the most lame ending to the war you can have.
I know. I guess it's just my strategy gaming side coming through. If I were in charge of the Imperium of Man, I'd consider it a job well done. Resistance was fierce enough to splinter the Orks, preventing them from acting as a single co-ordinated force. The planet is now not worth the expenditure that would be required to re-take it, so instead of wasting resources taking it back, or leaving it in Ork hands, just blow it the hell up. Leave them with nothing.
That's what I'd do, and what I'd like to see them do. I doubt they'll do anything though.
Oh and for the book. I understood it as the whole planet is mixed, some hives were down right destroyed, someone were completely fethed uped (Helsreach) but I believe there are a few that survived relatively in good shape.
I understood it as Helsreach was simply one of the worst battles.
@Kaldor - As I also own and have read Helsreach, I would humbly beg to differ about the best strategic option being the Exterminatus of Armageddon. Simply, from my stratgegic point of view, holding the ground, even if it is not viable currently as a manufacturing world, is better than destroying whatever potential it would have post-regeneration.
Edit: Spoiler refers to 'The Purging of Kadillus' by Gav Thorpe
Spoiler:
I don't know if you have also read it, but in 'The Purging of Kadillus', in which Ghazghkull lays siege to Kadillus on Piscina V and is repelled by the 3rd Company, Dark Angels, on page 410, Gazghkull expressly emphasises that he did not want Piscina V and that it was 'just practice' and that he has 'a score to settle'. He also infers that Armageddon would have been his 'but for one stupid, brave, remakable humie'. Hence, I would hazard a guess that his assaults are not directed at Armageddon itself, but rather at Yarrick. However, he automatically assumes Yarrick will be at Armageddon. Therefore, if it was me, I would let it be known to Ghazghkull, that Yarrick awaits him at some, less important, planet - thereby diverting his attention from Armageddon, allowing it's rejuvenation.
However, that's just my opinion, and I respect your own opinion.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Kaldor - As I also own and have read Helsreach, I would humbly beg to differ about the best strategic option being the Exterminatus of Armageddon. Simply, from my stratgegic point of view, holding the ground, even if it is not viable currently as a manufacturing world, is better than destroying whatever potential it would have post-regeneration.
I think the bit that really got me was where they talk about how Armageddon would have to have it's tithe grade reduced, or even waived entirely. And that as a result, it would receive next to no aid from the Imperium in order to rebuild, or to protect it. The way the characters were talking, once a planet is unable to contribute the Imperium will no longer take an interest in it.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Kaldor - As I also own and have read Helsreach, I would humbly beg to differ about the best strategic option being the Exterminatus of Armageddon. Simply, from my stratgegic point of view, holding the ground, even if it is not viable currently as a manufacturing world, is better than destroying whatever potential it would have post-regeneration.
I think the bit that really got me was where they talk about how Armageddon would have to have it's tithe grade reduced, or even waived entirely. And that as a result, it would receive next to no aid from the Imperium in order to rebuild, or to protect it. The way the characters were talking, once a planet is unable to contribute the Imperium will no longer take an interest in it.
Still, it's all good fun to speculate.
Indeed. Still, I think when the Imperium wants something, they will stick to one plan of attack for as long as possible. I mean, if Krieg underwent a 500 year civil war that ravaged the entire planet and they still manage to pump out a bajillion clone regiments every month, Armageddon will still be used to the bitter end.
Besides, it isn't like the planet hasn't been completely ravaged and then rebuilt (Angron influenced ethnic purge)
I can't help but feel renaming that fething planet might help its odds. It's like the universe sees a place called "Armageddon" and decides it must act to make the name accurate.
More on-topic, the Imperium, when it decides to, can rebuild just about anything. A victory on Armageddon, which seems probable given the "current" state of affairs would be a major propaganda tool, it would become a symbol, and the Imperium doesn't cheap out on symbols.
I mean, Cadia has withstood a fair number of Black Crusades, it's likely been wrecked, or near-wrecked half a dozen times or more, yet every time the IoM rebuilds. Armageddon would be no different, and the hard-won experience of the Steel Legions would likely make them a prime Imperial Guard force; provided their experience is codified and formalized into the nature of the steel legion itself, the IoM would likely make extensive use of them against Orks and in hostile climates, much like how Krieg forces are used heavily in siege environments.
There's still plenty of value on Armageddon for the IoM, heck, there's a whole class of battlecruiser named after it; it's become too important as a symbol, nevermind any strategic value, for the IoM to just say "screw you guys, cyclonic torpedos."
Exactly, that's kinda what makes 40K so compelling, and it's all based on personal preference, as demonstrated by our opposing opinions. Referring back to the OP then, the major downside of drastically advancing the over-arching 40K plot, would be that it would limit the scope of this 'speculation'. However, I guess that GW would not be as simple as to completely round-up the whole plot, as it would push fans too far away, lowering sales But I do hope for advancement of minor story-lines.
One thing I think they run risk of doing is complete stagnation.
One can only care about Armageddon and the 13th Black Crusade for so long. Even advancing only a few years means they could conclude the big battles of "today," and open up lots of new avenues for the future.
Speculation over the same subjects which have been speculated over for 10+ years gets tiresome.
It is a cliff hanger, but some obscurities could be wiped up.
but mainly the point here in all playable timelines, is that it could go any way. adding more would ruin that
Squat Kid wrote: A spinoff game of what happened pre emperor would be pretty cool...
That would be really cool! Post apoc battles with techno barbarian warlords and crazy mutants and all that. I imagine it to be like mixing WHFB with Mad Max and sprinkling some Toxic Avenger over the top. It would be all fun and games until the Thunder Warriors show up and hut everyone down.
i want something to happen that brings back the primarchs that are waiting, sleeping, healing or otherwise engaged.
id like more Development on Cypher (hoping hes a good guy)
More Legion of the damned maybe they could act as magnet for any good but corrupted Spacemarines 13th Company, Fallen Darkangels, perhaps some rogue DeathCompany or something i cant remember.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree that there should definitely be more events and area's of interest that could benefit from a decade, or even a single century to remove the clout of stagnation. Furthermore, because of the warp it's completely possible for an area to have an advancement of a mere year, do exactly the same thing as a century in another.
I'm all for events moving ahead. Stuff in the past happened in the past, and we know how things ended up. Sort of like how halo reach bored me to tears, I already knew the ending. I want something that will have me guessing, and not just doomsday scenarios hinted at in every armies fluff.
kwah wrote: an event id support would be the tau empire absorbing another alien empire even help us get more units!
The Tau Empire errupting into limited Civil War with the Farsight enclaves would be a good Imperial Armour type book / campaign - with a variety of other factions able to get involved in the ongoing (and liekly expanding) conflict
Dark Eldar preying on both sides and having fun
Tryanids splnter fleets moving in
Opportunist Imperial moves, Inquisitorial destablisation teams,
Mercenary operations with the Kroot (on both sides?) and human /Eldar renegades/pirates
Previously mentioned but unseen Tau client races
Orks drawn to the fighting
Chaos taking notice
Even Necrons waking up.
lots of cool stuf for everyone - Special Characters, variant army lists, fortifications
kwah wrote: an event id support would be the tau empire absorbing another alien empire even help us get more units!
The Tau Empire errupting into limited Civil War with the Farsight enclaves would be a good Imperial Armour type book / campaign - with a variety of other factions able to get involved in the ongoing (and liekly expanding) conflict
Dark Eldar preying on both sides and having fun
Tryanids splnter fleets moving in
Opportunist Imperial moves, Inquisitorial destablisation teams,
Mercenary operations with the Kroot (on both sides?) and human /Eldar renegades/pirates
Previously mentioned but unseen Tau client races
Orks drawn to the fighting
Chaos taking notice
Even Necrons waking up.
lots of cool stuf for everyone - Special Characters, variant army lists, fortifications
The Tau Empire's strenght is it's unity. The Imperium is, thanks to it's huge size, a far better place for civil wars without utterly ruining the faction.
Regarding the idea of expanding the timeline, i don't like it. Bringing back the primarchs is a horrible idea because every last of them is a terrible and utterly flat Sue in a universe of Sues.
It is much better and ultiamtely easier to explore the Imperium's long and interesting history than to try and find some kind of solution for the "current", ongoing conflicts.
kwah wrote: an event id support would be the tau empire absorbing another alien empire even help us get more units!
The Tau Empire errupting into limited Civil War with the Farsight enclaves would be a good Imperial Armour type book / campaign - with a variety of other factions able to get involved in the ongoing (and liekly expanding) conflict
Dark Eldar preying on both sides and having fun
Tryanids splnter fleets moving in
Opportunist Imperial moves, Inquisitorial destablisation teams,
Mercenary operations with the Kroot (on both sides?) and human /Eldar renegades/pirates
Previously mentioned but unseen Tau client races
Orks drawn to the fighting
Chaos taking notice
Even Necrons waking up.
lots of cool stuf for everyone - Special Characters, variant army lists, fortifications
Ive been hoping for this for a while. It would make a great story/setting
This request doesn't apply if the amount of comment pages exceeds something like 10. No one would bother reading that 
